REAL Flood Geology

There is a considerable amount of water in our atmosphere now, of course. I'm suggesting that there might have been much more due to unknown pre-flood earth/atmosphere properties, orbit, et al.I'm not debating you folks. I likely should have kept my thoughts to myself since this is a science thread. Thanks for your responses.

edited out cause my late night math was really wrong.Edited by DrJones*, : spelin iz gudEdited by DrJones*, : No reason given.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This is the same argument so many YECs love to use; however, because they lack basic geologic knowledge, they don't realize that the sediment that presently makes up the geologic column had to come from somewhere. It had to have been eroded.The most productive way to create sediment from erosion is to erode highlands, otherwise, you're just moving dirt around. In other words, you need to erode land that is above sea level and the higher the better. The higher the land, the better the erosion, and the greater the amount of sediment available for transport and subsequent deposition (i.e., the geologic column).If the pre-flood land was "relatively smooth," then erosion will be relatively non-productive.Let's think about this logically, Buz.Let's say you have a land mass that is relatively smooth. What's that? Maximum 2000' high rolling hills? Then the rains started. Since all the land masses were covered by water, that means sea levels were raised globally. That's a LOT of rain.So what we have is rain that is simultaneously eroding the hills and raising sea levels. The more you raise the sea level, the less erosion you will have, and therefore less sediment (remember, the higher, the better). In addition, the rising sea level is covering more and more land, which prevents it from being eroded. The longer it rains, the less sediment your model produces. Your model results in far too little sediment production and not very much water.All you'd see in the geologic record is oceanic crust overlain by oceanic sediments, which would in turn be overlain by a very thin cover of continentally-derived sediment that is graded from thickest at the bottom to clay at the top. This continental cover would be traced across the entire globe and you'd be able to follow it from the ocean basins up onto the continents - on each and every continent. The sediments would be thickest at the continental margins and pinch out both towards the deep ocean basins and possibly on the land if the land masses still had any topography.On the land masses themselves you might see peneplanation of the hard rocks and sediment-filled basins, and a generally flat landscape. However, hard rocks don't necessarily erode very easily in a few days of hard rain. They erode much better with time. Time allows water to seep into the rocks, alter the minerals to softer more erodable material such as clay. Transport in streams, not getting hit by raindrops, is what transforms boulders, cobbles, pebbles into sand.I'd say you'd have to have a virtual lack of hard rocks in your model, which means no igneous rocks and very little in the way of metamorphic rocks.It doesn't work, Buz. Even with my simplistic and totally non-technical examination of your model, your "relatively smooth" pre-flood earth would not produce enough sediment to result in the geologic column, nor enough water to depress the oceanic basins.

I am not up on the cutting edge creationist theories but what is their stance on sand. There are vast deposits of sand throughout the world - such a old red Sandstone, sandstone deposits of the southwest and the huge unconsolidated deposits of the various deserts. Was sand created in creation week in situ?If the flood occurred just a few thousand years after creation week would not flood geology exhibit very little sand deposits.

roxrkool,
Your the expert I've been told.How about correlating the sedimentary layers by specific gravity?
The grand canyon for example.
If the grand canyon was depossited in a short time under the same global flood then the layers will, in general, have been sorted out by specific gravity. Such that, the specific gavity of the layers ought to decrease as the column of sediments are ascended.
If not then the sorting was by grain size and under the influence of flow.
I predict this correlation will be avoided.
Joman.

Just so I understand. You are saying that Flood Geology would predict that each subsequent layer in the Grand Canyon (or any undusturbed geological column) should have increasing Specific Gravity.Is that correct?

He said: Decreasing as you go up - heaviest SG settles first, ones closest to 1.025 (salt water) last.For instance we would see from the top down:File Not Found That should be enought for starters.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Here are the grain sizes:boulders greater than 25.6 cm
cobbles 6.4 to 25.6 cm
pebbles 2 mm to 6.4 cm
sand 1/16 mm to 2 mm
silt 1/256 mm to 1/16 mm
clay less than 1/256 mmWhat will happen if neither your proposed flood distribution or the distribution according to your mistaken view of what geology would predict is what is observed in reality?Because guess what the real situation is. Edited by anglagard, : clarity

What explains the following picture better? Sorting by specific gravity, sorting by sediment size? Neither?Deposition and erosion in one year, or over millions? And how about an image concerning sedimentary rock classification Mudstone is a form of shale.Readers have seen the hypothesis presented in message 110 and may readily draw their own conclusions.Edited by anglagard, : Add classification chart.Edited by anglagard, : Mudstone is essentially shaleEdited by anglagard, : add reference to message 110Edited by anglagard, : Better image of Grand Canyon

Actually both specific gravity and grain size are important. In settling from liquids at low Reynolds number, with minerals of similar density grain size will dominate as the settling velocity is directly proportional to the density difference and to the square of the diameter for a spherical particle according to Stokes's law. From water deposition one would expect the coarse grained rocks to be deposited first followed by finer and finer grain sizes. However, according to Grand Canyon Geology by Beus and Morales, the deposits forming the Bright Angel Shales coarsen as they ascend. From page 105 "Upward coarsening sequences are up to 25 feet (8 m) thick and typically can be traced for several 10's of kilometers.Randy

Thanks for the correction, for some reason I was thinking from top to bottom.From your listSandstone 2.32
Limestone 2.61
Granite 2.69Since we have Tapeats Sandstone towards the bottom and the heavier Kaibab Limestone (complete with course brachiopod and sea lilies fossils) at the top are we done here?Has Joman single handedly invalidated the flood model?Along those line how does "hydrological sorting" explain sea lilies, and sea shells at the top of the canyon?http://www.kaibab.org/images/gc_crino.htm
http://www.kaibab.org/tr951/gc951207.htmHow can Flood Geology explain the often common occurrence of sea shell, coral, and sponge fossils at the top of mountains and the upper rim of the canyon?
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Careful, your tossing concepts totally foreign to most people - being able to compare flow characteristics for different speeds, sizes, temperatures, pressures, etc. Yes, and large size can result in higher position in a mix than is predicted by density too. And we have limestone on two sides of sandstone. I would say that Joman's hypothesis is invalidated.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I just thought that if someone was going to claim that the GC sediments were all sorted into all those layers by hydrodynamics effect in water they should maybe know a little something about the factors the govern sedimentation. The Reynolds number is one of the most important factors in hydrodynamics. It is a dimensionless number that allows prediction of the nature of flow. For a spherical particle Re is calculated by multiplying the diameter by the density of the fluid and the velocity and dividing by the viscosity of the fluid. If Re < 0.2 Stokes law can be used to predict settling velocityv = 2(p-p0)r^2g/9n
where p-p0 is the density difference, r is the diameter of the particle, g the gravitational constant and n is the viscosity of the liquid.For practical examples with some data from other posts, with sand of about 1/16 mm diameter and a specific gravity of 2.5 g/cc the settling velocity calculate from Stokes's law is 0.003 m/sec and the Re= 0.199 so Stokes's law is valid and the calculation is fairly accurate. For bigger particles with higher Re significant corrections to Stokes's law are required as the particles will settle more slowly than predicted by Stokes's law.On the other hand for a 1 micron clay particle Re is very small and the settling velocity is only about 0.0000008 m/sec. Still water for a long time is needed to get such fine particles to deposit in thick uniform layers. This hardly fits with a whirling swirling global flood.Of course there are many other problems with flood deposition of all those complex layers in the GC such as the extensive patterns of animal burrows found in some layers, the presence of evaporites in other layers and the famous animal tracks in the Coconino Sandstone that we have discussed exhaustively on past threads.Randy

I have no idea, but I get the distinct impression most YECs think the geologic column is composed of sand, silt, and clay, with a few conglomerates thrown in for good measure.

I'm not the only 'expert,' Joman. Most of the people who have posted replies to you are very knowledgeable about geology.No, the formations that form the Grand Canyon are not the result of gradational layering. They are the result of depositional environments. If they did result from S.G., then we would have figured that out long ago.You have alternating and intercalating layers of sandstone, shale, limestone, plus a whole host of other minor sedimentary rock types that cannot be formed as a result of specific gravity.How do flood waters form limestone, for example? Limestone requires a certain temperature, depth, water clarity and turbidity, and chemistry to form. What are the conditions that allow deposition of sandstone, then limestone, shale, limestone, and back to sandstone in a flooding environment?