Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big-Sediment vs. Little-Sediment Flood Geology?
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 18 (72676)
12-13-2003 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by roxrkool
12-13-2003 10:47 AM


Global Flood Sediment
Indeed, a flood of global proportions initiated by and following a forty-day, hyper-intense, torrential rainfall event capable of covering the entire surface of the earth, would lay down an unbelievably deep layer of sediment.
Anyone who has observed rampaging flood waters following a 100-year rainfall event in the Ohio River or Mississippi River basins could attest to the amount of sediment carried by the flood waters. Even more to the point are the effects of the upland erosion that would result from intense, long-term, saturating rainfall scouring the supersaturated earth over a forty-day period in the volumes required to subsequently cover the entire earth.
Now, from an evolutionist's point of view, all the mineral and fossilized organic materials from millions of years of pre-Deluge sedimentation would be dislodged from their orderly layers, jumbled up together in an earth-scarifying, sediment-laden rush of waters resembling something along the order of a molten lava flow rather than just a thick, muddy little 100-year flood.
Then, as Roxrkool has said, the heavier sediment would settle out, immediately upon pooling, into a reconsolidated, very thick layer of mumbo-jumbo, mishmash of materials that had no previous evolutionary nexus within a previous, single sedimentary layer. Where is this worldwide layer of Deluge concrete mixer washout? It should be very easy to find as it is overlaid by only 5,500 years of subsequent sediment laid down by puny (by comparison) little rainfall events.
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by roxrkool, posted 12-13-2003 10:47 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 18 (72927)
12-15-2003 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Minnemooseus
12-15-2003 3:01 AM


Delta Deposits
Moose:
Your scenerio is dead on. I was not specific enough in my scenerio of subsequent deposits. They would indeed be concentrated in 'river deltas' and comprised of mishmash of large stone and small particle deposit layer with all manner of fossilized material previously segregated into orderly layers being reconsolidted in a single deep layer of materials that did not live, die, and become deposited within anything resembling a 'nexus.'
Maybe later in the thread I will quote a reliable source I have to look up again regarding the average quantity of sediment deposited annually by the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico, but if memory serves me right, it's along the lines of 25 billion tons a year without benefit of anything more than average annual precipitation and the occasional "100-year" event in one or more of the Mississippi's upland basins.
However, consider the innundation of the entire earth's surface for an entire year by supersilt-laden waters. The finer clay particles from this stilled waters would have left a substantial and visible layer of fines at least on the order of an emmense volcanic eruption such as "Toga" of 75,000 years ago, which layer of ash is recorded by oceanic borings to be about 18 to 24 inches thick in the Indian Ocean alone. The estimated volume of that eruption is 35 thousand cubic kilometers from a calderon approximately 30 square miles in area if my memory serves me right. The "Flood" would have stripped vastly more cubic miles of material off the Earth's surface by erosion, and suspended a fine silt load that would have deposited a much thicker layer of silt fines worldwide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-15-2003 3:01 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 18 (72987)
12-15-2003 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Minnemooseus
12-15-2003 1:48 PM


Storm Intensity and Drawdown Effects
Moose:
As long as "passing the buck" is allowed, I would like to pass the buck on three calculations:
1) Storm intensity given in inches per hour of a 40-day long event resulting in run-off required to cover Mt. Everest by 200 feet.
2) R.U.S.L.E. calculation of the gross total worldwide erosion caused by the event summed in calculation #1 above.
3) Gross cubic tons of sediment loading resuspended by the effects of the post-Deluge, 40-day, rapid draw-down across the supersaturated sediment layer from the initial year-long laydown of sediment originally precipitated from the Flood pool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-15-2003 1:48 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-15-2003 2:30 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 18 (73222)
12-15-2003 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Minnemooseus
12-15-2003 11:49 PM


Okay, Minnie, I'm calling McFall in to translate that sypherin' of yours into plain language that I can understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-15-2003 11:49 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-16-2003 12:02 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024