Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wmscott:
Really? What is the mainstream geology explanation for finding recent planktonic Foraminifera in SE Wisconsin at an elevation of 1000 ft? According to mainstream geology, at the end of the ice age, sea levels slowly rose to current levels and were never significantly above and this area was not significantly depressed in the ice age due in part to the glacial forebulge effect.[/B][/QUOTE]Probably the best explanation is wind blown plankton (wait, I thought you said forams before). Other than that, I have no problem with local lacustrine or other periglacial deposits at elevations above sea level. The point is that there is no need to evoke some fantastic theory to get these deposits, and there is no evidence for a global flood.[This message has been edited by edge, 10-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Probably the best explanation is wind blown plankton. Other than that, I have no problem with local lacustrine or other periglacial deposits at elevations above sea level. The point is that there is no need to evoke some fantastic theory to get these deposits, and there is no evidence for a global flood.

---

Foraminifera are too large to be carried on the wind. (>57um) [/quote]I'll remember that next time I'm in a Nevada desert dust storm.

quote:

---

These are marine not lacustrine or freshwater. As I posted earlier: According to mainstream geology, at the end of the ice age, sea levels slowly rose to current levels and were never significantly above and this area was not significantly depressed in the ice age due in part to the glacial forebulge effect.

---

Hmm, why did the sea level rise slowly? According to you it rose quite rapidly. So who is right? You or everyone else? I also think I need to ask you to docuement that the marine waters NEVER invaded this part of the continent.I still am not sure why we are even discussing this since such organisms at elevations of less than a thousand feet is hardly evidence for a flood. Please explain.

quote:

---

Since Marine Foraninifera only come from the sea and are too large for wind transport, so what is the mainstream theory for how they got to SE Wisconsin?

---

I have no idea since I am not a glacial geomorphologist, however, I see no evidence of a global flood. I still believe that forams can be wind transported from dried marine deposits in front of a receding glacier. Do you have evidenc to the contrary?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Yes of course I have evidence. Only small particles below about 57 um in size are carried any real distance by the wind. Larger particles are carried shorter distances and sand size grains are not truly carried by the wind in a sand storm but are merely bounced along the ground by the wind, only the small dust size particles are carried up to any great height. A web site on wind erosion in talking about the sizes of particles carried by the wind stated. "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.cahe.wsu.edu/~cp3/erosion/erosion.htm In order to be carried any great distance sand grains have to be below 30 um, which means that particles above 57 um are not carried very far by wind. As you can see, based on this evidence it is clear that forams are not carried very far by wind, and even smaller things like diatoms would not be carried far enough to reach the upper Midwest. So it is clear that only a temporary marine transgression could have left traces of marine forams in SE Wisconsin. So this raises the question of how extensive was this flooding.

---

This is all very interesting, wmscott. But I do not see quite what the properties of sand grains has to do with diatoms. According to these two websites, diatoms can be as small as 10 microns and can be blown great distances by the wind.http://igloo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wais/abstracts00/Kellogg2.htmhttp://thalassa.gso.uri.edu/ESphyto/sizeshap/shape.htmPerhaps you should better define just what type of diatoms you are dealing with and then be SURE that they are indeed marine. Though I am not a palynologist, I seem to understand that there are some freshwater diatoms that can look like marine counterparts. Are you sure of your sources?

quote:

---

edge: Hmm, why did the sea level rise slowly? According to you it rose quite rapidly. So who is right? You or everyone else? I also think I need to ask you to docuement that the marine waters NEVER invaded this part of the continent.

​

wmscott: Under main stream geology, it took a fair amount of time for the last Ice Age to end, as the Ice Sheets melted back, the water they contained was transferred back to the oceans from which it came. This is believed to have caused global sea levels to progressively rise from their Ice Age lows to the level they are found at today. More recent theories take into consideration the increasing amount of evidence that the Ice Age ended very abruptly with much of the ice disappearing in just a few short years. The newer findings indicate that the sea levels rose much quicker than had once been supposed, but they are still believed by most geologists to have merely increased to present level without any major transgressions.

---

Okay, so far you are not exactly supporting your point.

quote:

---

On major marine transgressions of the North American continent, Main stream geology does accept the formation of the Champlain sea which failed to even extend into lake Ontario. Lake Ontario has an elevation of 245 ft, the next lake west is lake Erie at 570 ft and is separated from lake Ontario by Niagara Falls. To cover SE Wisconsin would require a rise in the Chaplain's level by well over three hundred feet.

---

Yes, using todays elevations, that is. Come on, wmscott, I want PROOF!

quote:

---

The pattern of ice age and post ice drainage is known, and from this it is known that the areas west of the former Champlain sea were not depressed nearly enough to have once been under its waters. The pattern of fossils is that the finds in the Champlain sea area are associated with marine mud and bottom life showing a long marine submergence.

---

Yes and just a few hundred miles from Wisconsin. Your marine environment is getting much closer than it is today.

quote:

---

The Champlain sea is as close as mainstream geology believes the sea got to the Midwest, which is why the Michigan whale bones are viewed as being moved by man since a marine transgression that far west is not accepted.

---

Hmm, seems to me that airborne diatoms have not been ruled out.

quote:

---

SE Wisconsin is of course farther west and higher in elevation and was never isostactically depressed enough to be below current sea levels. This is of course shown by the ice age and post ice age drainage patterns. The Mississippi river and other rivers continued to flow, a extension of the sea into SE Wisconsin due to a glacial suppression, would have severely disrupted if not completely reversed their flow. Since this did not happen, we know that the areas drained by these rivers remained above sea level in recent geologic history.

---

But still well within the range of wind transport. Nevertheless, I am still wondering what this all had to do with a global flood. I see no evidence yet that compels one to even consider a biblical flood. I also repeat my suggestion that you take a closer look at these diatoms. There are so many holes in your story that I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that they are not marine diatoms at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
And some diatoms are larger. Measuring the image size of some that I have taken pictures of, and reducing the size by the magnification factor, some marine diatoms that I have found measure approximately 130 microns. Which is far too large to have been carried to Midwest by wind.

---

I'm not sure how you would know this. You have only discussed the aerodynamics of sand grains. There is a difference between them and diatoms.

quote:

---

e: Perhaps you should better define just what type of diatoms you are dealing with and then be SURE that they are indeed marine. Though I am not a palynologist, I seem to understand that there are some freshwater diatoms that can look like marine counterparts. Are you sure of your sources?

​

wmscott: Yes, I was concerned about this as well and was very careful. For identifying the diatoms I used a very reliable identification guide that the publisher in private correspondence assured me is widely used and a standard in the field. For the forams I have so far mainly been using the book "Recent Planktonic Foraminfera" which is one of the best available books on the subject.

---

And your qualifications to do this are?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
And some diatoms are larger. Measuring the image size of some that I have taken pictures of, and reducing the size by the magnification factor, some marine diatoms that I have found measure approximately 130 microns. Which is far too large to have been carried to Midwest by wind. Since some challenged my findings on diatoms and suggested that forams would been more convincing due to their larger sizes, I have found them as well. Since I am using a 63 micron sieve, everything I now find is larger than 63 microns. Some things that I have found range up to and beyond 500 microns. So wind blown is not a possible explanation for what I have been finding.

---

I have gone through my old texbooks and they seem to disagree with your conclusions. They say that wind can be a very effective transporter of sediments up to the medium-grained sand size. This includes grains up to 200 microns. My own observation of windblown sand is that the grains are visible to me even with my impaired vision. That must make them substantially larger than 75 microns which is naked-eye visible to most people with good eyesight. Having said this, it is still not terribly relevant to windblown diatoms, unless you can prove to me that diatoms have a substantially similar density and surface roughness to quartz grains. Are you just blowing off the fact that diatoms are transported hundreds of miles to the interior of Antarctica to be entombed in the ice there?But diatoms and forams are small potatoes, now for something that will really knock your socks off. I have been sorting through what I find in my slides, which is a real mix of odds and ends. One of the things I have found are these black little balls about 700 microns in diameter that look like perfect little ball bearings. They have been a bit of a inconvenience, being fairly many and making it somewhat harder to find what I have been looking for in my slides. Friday I decided see if I could figure out what they were, see if they were significant. So I took a probe and crushed one, to my surprise the ball cracked like glass and was black and crystalline inside. I got a chill, I realized that I was looking at a microtektite. [/quote]Yes, these are quite common in the geological record. The earth receives some tons of them every day. I do find this very interesting, but do not see it as any particularly compelling evidence for a global flood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Diatoms don't have little wings, their ill regular shape and having a density closer to sea water than silica, will cause them to travel comparatively farther, but only so far.

---

Well then, how far is that?

quote:

---

As for the wind blown diatoms in Antarctica you should look at their size.

---

Maybe you should. The differences in density and aerodynamics indicate to me that this might be no problem. Now, since, it is your position that this is wrong, it is up to you to show why.

quote:

---

As you yourself pointed out, some diatoms are very small and are easily transported by wind. As I stated earlier, I am working with diatoms and now forams that are far too large for wind transport to account for.

---

But you have not shown this. Your only example consists of wind transport of quartz grains. This is completely irrelevant. Once again you have a weak grasp of what evidence is.

quote:

---

On your "wind can be a very effective transporter of sediments up to the medium-grained sand size. This includes grains up to 200 microns" I would suggest you remember your vantage point, standing on the ground I would guess. From such a vantage point you are seeing the saltation effect. To be carried hundreds or thousands of miles, the sand needs to be carried many thousands of feet up into the atmosphere.

---

First of all you have not shown that saltation is not a viable mechanism for transporting diatoms in a periglacial environment. Second you have not shown that such altitides are not attainable by diatoms of any size.

quote:

---

Ground level blowing will not do the trick. Consider sand dunes, they move by the wind blowing the sand up over the dune and down the other side, the dune is moved slowly inch by inch.

---

Consider then dust storms that that cover hundreds of square miles...

quote:

---

The wind doesn't just blow them away up into the air and they come down in another part of the country. The sand grains the dunes are composed of are too large for the wind to carry away.

---

And just what does this have to do with diatoms? Please, for just once, give us some evidence that actually supports your position.

quote:

---

Great rocks are moved by rivers, but of course the rocks don't float and are too large for normal turbulent river water too carry, they are moved as bed load. It is the same with wind blown sand, grains too large to be carried by the air are blown along the ground and near the ground. This is seen in the way sand dunes move in land under prevailing wind conditions. The site I posted the link to in post 441 had information on wind erosion that should be helpful.

---

Thank you for the lesson. However, it is not relevant to this discussion.

quote:

---

On the microtektites you stated that "The earth receives some tons of them every day." are you saying that the earth has tons of debris created each day by daily impact events, or are you confusing microtektites with meteor dust? Impact events are fairly common in the geological sense, but they are not a daily event or the sky must really be falling where you live.

---

Yeah, well, sometimes I get carried away with a train of thought. Especially when I don't particularly feel that a lot of work is warranted as a response.[This message has been edited by edge, 10-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:

quote:

---

you have not shown that saltation is not a viable mechanism for transporting diatoms in a periglacial environment. Second you have not shown that such altitides are not attainable by diatoms of any size.

---

​

Saltation movement of material causes a good deal of wear and tear, sort of like rolling your car down a mountain side, the method of transportation will be obvious by the damage done. The material I have found is in very good shape so saltation is not viable as an explanation for the transport mechanism. As for lifting diatoms to high altitudes, saltation is strictly a near surface phenomenon. The links and information already posted clearly show that particles as large as the diatoms and forams we are discussing, are not lifted to high altitudes in the atmosphere, unless you wish to invoke Wizard of Oz type wind effects.

---

So, you still have no evidence to support your point. You have neither shown that saltation is not viable, nor that other possible methods of wind transport are ruled out. Well, regardless, you need to find some way of explaining marine diatoms hundreds of miles from the sea in Antarctica. I don't really care how it is done, but it is a fact that it happens. You cannot avoid the facts.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Consider then dust storms that that cover hundreds of square miles...

---

​

Still only a local transport event if it occurs over a sandy area, and the finer sand can of course be carried great distances. If you have a point to make here, you will have to state it more clearly, no point in me wasting my time shooting at shadows.

---

Right and just what size are those finer sand grains? And their specific gravity compared to diatoms? And just what is their source? How did the sand dunes of the Entrada Fm. get from their source to the far reaches of the Colorado Plateau? According to you this should be impossible. I dare say that you are being selective about the facts that you will entertain.If you are wasting your time, it has nothing to do with me. I have been trying to get you to focus on what you need to show a biblical flood and what is actual evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:

quote:

---

e: How did the sand dunes of the Entrada Fm. get from their source to the far reaches of the Colorado Plateau? According to you this should be impossible. I dare say that you are being selective about the facts that you will entertain.

---

​

If you are referring to the Entrada dunes in the Great Sand Dunes National Monument National Park, the following quote from the brochure for the park is quite informative under the section titled 'geology.'

---

No, wmscott. The Entrada Formation is not found anywhere near the Great Sand Dunes NP. On the other hand it is found up to hundreds of miles from its source. Your lack of knowledge here does not surprise me.

quote:

---

Geology: The dunes were formed from sand deposited by the Rio Grande river and its tributaries, which flow through the San Luis Valley. For thousands of years, prevailing westerly winds have come over the Rockies and down over the river flood plain, picking up sand particles on the way. These are then deposited at the east edge of the valley before the wind rises to cross the Sangre de Cristo mountains.

---

Irrelevant, unfortunately.

quote:

---

... Are these the dunes you wished to refer to? If so they hurt your position rather than help, it would appear you have only succeeded in placing your foot firmly in your mouth.

---

Quite to the contrary, I'm afraid. See above.

quote:

---

As for saltation being a transport mechanism for large marine diatoms found in Wisconsin. Diatoms are made of glass and are in the form of hollow glass boxes made up of two over lapping halves that fit together. So you are saying that you believe these fine structures were transported by saltation which involves hitting the ground and being bounced and rolled along until picked up by the wind for a short hop and then hitting the ground again for well over thousand miles?

---

Hmm, I thought you said it was much less than that. Under 600 as I remember. Nevertheless, you have ignored the fact that diatoms have been transported hundreds of miles by wind, whether by saltation or not. You may as well face the facts.

quote:

---

As I pointed out in my last post, this type of wear and tear would be very evident and is not present in the samples I have examined.

---

Well then maybe it wasn't saltation. Whatever it was, you need to come up with an explanation.

quote:

---

quote:

---

e: Well, regardless, you need to find some way of explaining marine diatoms hundreds of miles from the sea in Antarctica. I don't really care how it is done, but it is a fact that it happens. You cannot avoid the facts.

---

​

No, one certainly can't avoid the facts and as I have been pointing out to you diatoms come in a wide range of sizes and the smaller sizes are easily transported by wind while the larger sizes are not. I web site we referred to earlier in this thread on marine diatoms found in Antarctica stated " 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 The reason of course wind transport is not precluded is that they are small enough for the wind to pick up and carry. Even in Antarctica, the phyiscal laws governing wind transportation still apply, things above 57 microns are too large for long distance transportation by wind lofting.

---

No. As I remember it was 57 microns for SAND, not diatoms. And I don't really buy that anyway.

quote:

---

The larger sizes of marine diatoms and forams I have found here in the Midwest are much larger and would not be carried far by the wind.

---

Very well, but you still have to show this empirically.

quote:

---

quote:

---

e: I don't really care how it is done, but it is a fact that it happens.

---

​

Now if I had made a statement like this you would have jumped all over me. Sounds like you are the one who is blindly believeing in things.

---

You really don't get it. When we see something happens in reality, then we need an explanation. We can't just say that because sand grains cannot be transported this way, then it must be impossible. The difference between you and me is that you have derived a conclusion that is not a fact.

quote:

---

I think I just heard the sound of your other foot entering your mouth.

---

I think your hearing is deficient.