The 3 catch cries of uniformitarian geology are equally well explained by the Flood

quote:

---

The same catchments that drained the Flood waters, rapidly eroding soft sediments into gorges, are also the catchments that provide the source for these same rivers today.

---

So there were soft sediments around before the flood to be rapidly eroded by the flood? Did God create the world with soft sediments ready to be eroded into gourges? Why weren't the soft sediments mostly washed into the oceans as the flood drained? How did these soft sediments get sorted into uniform layers?

quote:

---

There are no huge chalk beds forming anywhere.

---

Refresh my memory please. How did huge chalk beds form during a global flood? I don't remember your answer to this question.

quote:

---

It is all simply 'just so' stories. Everything written in these books is very 'reasonable' but they are just stories.

---

No they are explanations with evidence while you have a myth that is contradicted by evidence.Let's look at Glenn Mortons page on the geologic column in North Dakota just so you don't forget to give a flood based explanation for the layers found there No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htmAs I pointed out it takes the evaporation of about 70 feet of seawater to produce a foot of salt. Lets say each bed as an average depth of 60 feet, though some are much thicker, and was the result of an area twice as large as the bed evaporating. You need to catch and evaporate more the 2000 feet of sea water over large areas at least 11 times between your flood surges and deposit other sediments in between. How does this happen in a year?The salt beds underling Michigan are 400 to 1600 feet in thickness and cover a large area. There are at least 10 large salt beds in the western hemisphere alone. Where is the energy to evaporate all this water? How can it be evaporated without cooking the earth to death when it condenses?

quote:

---

YE-creationists of course beleive that the the lifeforms of the fossil record all lived contemporaneously and to a certain extent in different ecologies.

---

So amonites were sorted by the complexity of their shell sutures because they lived in different ecologies? You also have the problem that dinosaur fossils are found on the same continents as the fossils of eocine mammals and therapsid reptiles but always in different layers. Why would dinosaurs always live in differnt ecologies than eocine mammals and theraspid reptiles and why would deposits from those ecological zones always be deposited below eocine mammals and above permian therapsids and never with any modern mammals?The fossil record falsifies the flood pure and simple and all the creations "explanations" such as those you gave on the threads on the topic generate massive absurdity. No combination of ecological zoning, hydrodynamic sorting and differential escapability can save your myth.Randy

quote:

---

No. We of course believe that the vast horizontal layers that cover sub-continental regons in sheets of sediment were layed down during high energy flows as revealed by paleocurrent data. Lower volume run-off carved features into these soft layers as the flow moved from a sheet to stream regime.

---

So are you saying that low volume run off carved the Redwall Limestones and Grand Wash Dolomites?

quote:

---

This explains all of your points. Because of the low volume during the second stage channeling occurs and carves out features rather than removing entire layers.

---

Actually you haven’t explained any of anyone’s points as far as I can see. Are Dolomites deposited by second stage channeling? Is that how limestone layers form?

quote:

---

Fast currents have been hsown to geernate neat layers by hydrodynamic sorting. You really should get Berthualt's video from AIG for something like $10. Unless they faked more photo realisitc footage than appears in Jurassic Park, the footage shows actual layers forming under fast currents in huge experimental channels.

---

I have seen pictures of his results. Did the layers alternate in appearance like varves? I don’t remember seeing that. Were there layers of limestone anywhere in his rapidly formed sediments? I don’t think so. How about salt deposits? Do you think geologists can't tell when layers have been deposited by rapid flow? Do you really think it is legit to extrapolate his results to deposition over thousand of square miles? I guess you do but I don’t think anyone who was not desperately trying to defend a myth that science has long rejected would think the same.

quote:

---

Salyt beds? In our scenario the salt beds may have been generated due to precipitaiton due to either volcanic heating or even accelerated radiodecay. I wont pretend this is proven. It is how we would account for it at this point.

---

Did you pay attention? You need to evaporate enormous quantities of water at least 11 separate times to get the salt in North Dakota alone.Salt won’t deposit until the solution is saturated. Raising the temperature raises the solubility so I think you have a big problem here. I don't have the whole phase diagram here but at 40C the solubiity is about 40%. You also need to evaporate a LOT of water to get this much salt, you need to do it over and over again and you need to do it fast.There are estimated to be 30 trillion tons of salt under Michigan alone and the deposits extend under Ohio and Ontario as wellhttp://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/saltminingM.htmlThere are 11 different salt layers in the North Dakota sediments that Morton discusses. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htmOne of them alone has at least 20 trillion tons of salt and the others probably total up to more and of course there are 8 other salt beds in the Western Hemisphere and many others around the world. Let’s be conservative and say that Michigan alone and this one layer in North Dakota are half the world’s buried salt so there is a total of about 100 trillion tons in your so-called flood deposits (This is probably low by a lot but I don’t have time to do all the research needed).You have to start with seawater no more than about 0.035% salt or fish couldn’t live. So 9x10^19 grams of salt requires 2.6 x 10^21 gram of water to evaporate. The only way you can Evaporate the water you need to evaporate rapidly enough to make several different salt layers in a year while all the other deposition is going on is to boil it and boil it fast. The latent heat of evaporation of water is 2259 J/g so it requires 5.85 x 10^24 J of heat to boil this much seawater and of course another 4.2 J/g/degree to heat it to boiling temperature.There are about 5x10^21 grams of air in the atmosphere and it takes about 1 Joule to heat a gram of air by 1 degree so boiling this much water will release more than 10 times the amount of heat into the air required to heat the air by over 100 C as the water condenses releasing its latent heat of evaporation. Even if you only need to boil half the water to get the salt to start depositing you will release far more than enough heat to cook the earth to death.Just boiling enough water to deposit the salt in Michigan releases moer that enough heat to heat the entire atmosphere by 100C. Or if the temperature does not go up the relative humidity will quickly reach 100% so the water will stop evaporating long before the salt is deposited. Either way your model is sunk.I am also trying to figure out how volcanic heating and accelerated radioactive decay boil water that has just surged over hundreds of thousands of square miles of previously deposited sediments, but the BFM (boiling flood model) just cooks the earth to death so it doesn’t help you rescue your myth.Randy

quote:

---

Ammonites? Sorting would be by ecolocy, morphology, mobility and survival characteristics in our model.

---

And how do any of these supposed factors result in sorting by the complexity of their shell sutures so that it appears they evolved over time? Your model is just plain nonsense.

quote:

---

Dinosaur/mammal seperations. I know I wouldn't have spent much time on the dinosaur plains. I personally know an Australian creationst who was present as new Paluxy River dino/human trackways were uncovered. They followed the trackway layer until it ended in a river bank. This was removed and there were new dinosuar and human imprints under that. As simple as that. This is a totally normal (but creationiost )Aussie archeologist (ie not a paleontologist) who in his spare time joined the Paluxy guys. He saw it uncovered with his own eyes.

---

Right and I bet Elvis was there with them as well.Randy

quote:

---

The freshwater Hermite layers of Grand Canyon have land plant material strwn through thousands of square miles with no evidence of a river delta. We have excellent eveidcnce of both catstrophic fresh and sea-water fooding. Just keep telling youself that somehow there is an envirnement that could do it today.

---

Just keep telling yourself that this catastrophic deposition could preserve animal tracks, salt crystals, raindrop impressions and mud cracks. The Hermit Shale which is not really shale can be explained by mainstream geology.Account SuspendedThere is no need to resort to a magic whirling, swirling, surging flood.Randy

quote:

---

You can rule out the flood based on that, and dinosuar trackways, but instead I will look at the evidence that the bread and butter of the geo-col was rapidly generated. Most of the geo-col talks of rapidity and continuity.

---

Yes one can rule out the flood based on extensive salt deposits and rule it out again based on trace fossils. You can also rule out the flood based on
Sorting of the fossil record
Paleosols
Eolian sandstones
Biogeography
Biodiversity of land vertebrates, plants and insects
Millions of Lamina in places like the Green River
Millions of Varves in Lake Baikal
Hundreds of thousand of annual layers in Antarctic Ice cores
I suspect that this list is incomplete and other can come up with other falsifications of the flood myth.There is absolutely no evidence of any layers that were deposited by a worldwide flood no matter how rapidly some of them may have formed. The fact that there are layers between your supposedly rapidly deposited layers that could not have been deposited rapidly or by a flood falsifies the claim that the geologic column was deposited by a worldwide flood and this is only one of many falsifications of the flood myth. Most ideas need only one falsification to be falsified but it seems the flood will live on in the minds of YECs no matter how many times it is falsified.Randy

quote:

---

Lithification
What supplied the compressive forces? You're kidding right? Thousands of feet of sedmient on top and you ask for a source of compression.

---

You’re the one who must be kidding. Where there thousands of feet of sediments compressing the bedrock in the Middle East? People have been living there continuously since right after the flood according to your myth. You would think they would have noticed thousands of feet of sediments disappearing. Of course the Egyptians lived right through the flood without even noticing it so I suppose that’s not so surprising after all.There are hard rocks near the surface or on the surface all over the world. I wonder how these thousands of feet of sediment that compressed and hardened all the surface rock layers all over the world disappeared without much trace in a few thousand years and managed to leave any topsoil behind. They must have disappeared before people built any civilizations anywhere or we wouldn't have continous archeological records in so many places. Did God just poof them out of existence after the rocks hardened and poof some topsoil in place over the remaining rock.You just make up one ad hoc rationalization after another leaving any semblance of science further and further behind as you desperately attempt to defend the myth of a worldwide flood.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy

​

I think you need to go on an excursion to Mt St Helens and tread the water laid sediments there. And it's only been 20 years.

​

And why should those in the middle east hav noticed sediments 'disappearing'?! They were drying not disappearing.

---

So they were living on them while they were still soft? How did that work? How long did it take all that limestone that the Egyptians used to build the pyramides to "dry"?I have been to Mt. St. Helens twice since the eruption. The "sediments" were not exactly laid by water. First the largest landslide in recorded history occured then there was a massive lateral blast. There was water of course both from melting glacier and of course the Toutle River cut through the flowing lahar. Have you walked out on those sediments around the volcano? If you try you can dig them up with your bare hands though it is best to use gloves. I didn't see any layers of limestone or sandstone in what I dug up. How about you?There are layers from where the lahar cut through unconsolidated ash deposits from a few large and countless small eruptions that have occured over the past 20,000 years but I don't see how that helps your model.It does not matter how fast some layers may have been deposited. In many place around the world there are layers that could not have been deposited rapidly or by a flood and they are in between layers you claim to have been flood deposits. Evaporites are only one example. Some others have been discussed here as well. I am still waiting for you to tell us how the flood could have possibly "deposited" the Grand Wash Dolomites in a year and I don't think your answer for the chalk deposits was any where near adequate. I think if you do the calculation you will find that heat from the chemical reactions required to deposit all the supposed flood deposited limestone and dolomites in a year will also cook the earth to death.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy

​

Your expectaitons are that it wont work.

​

My expectations are that it will.

​

We are both biased.

​

However, I know that I can carefully argue that the majority of the layers could have been laid rapidly and that is sufficent for me. Your problematica are no different than that for any theory.

​

Macroevolution is all problematica!

---

Ah the old false dichotomy. Macroevolution is totally irrelevent to this arguement.I can argue based on arguments that you have been unable to refute and will never be able to refute that there are some layers that could not have been laid down rapidly. You have shown no evidence that any of these layers were necessarily laid down by a worldwide flood. Again it does not matter if 9 of out 10 layers could have been laid down "rapidly"(and in my opinion your evidence is really not all that good for many of them). The presence of layers throughout the geologic column that could not have been been laid down rapidly or during a flood shows that none of the layers were laid down by a worldwide flood. Combing this with all of the other falsifications of the flood myth leads me to my bias. I am biased in favor of reality you are biased in favor of an ancient myth.
Randy
PS This is likely to be my last post for about a month.

I have returned from my conference in New York my stint as a visiting Professor at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok and am partly recovered from the trip back so I thought I would reply to TB’s last post to me before I left.

quote:

---

You have religious-like confidence in science whereas I have confidence in the Scriptures and see science as a wonderful, but fallible, tool.

​

Your primary error, in your own words, is thinking that science = reality. Science actually only gives us raw data and interpretations.

---

I am confident that the million or so varves in lake Baikal took a long time to form because of Stoke’s law and I have done the calculations to demonstrate this in the past as well as Reynold’s number calculations showing that the sedimentation will obey Stoke’s Law. I am confident that water won’t condense from vapor without releasing its latent heat because of the first law of thermodynamics and that evaporates won’t form from sea water or flood water without evaporation because of well known facts of phase behavior. Is this a religious-like confidence? I don’t know. It’s not based on an ancient myth like your confidence in your particular interpretation of scripture but on scientific facts.I would guess that you have confidence in the conclusions of science in virtually every other area and only doubt them where they conflict with the myth you feel so constrained to believe. When you are sick do you go to a Priest for an exorcism or does your religious like confidence in science cause you to go to a doctor instead? If you marry or are married and your wife has a baby will you isolate her for a week after a boy child or two weeks after a girl child as scripture demands in Leviticus 12 or will you rely on a religious-like faith in modern science and bring her home from the hospital when the doctor says it’s ok? Do you think the earth is fixed and immobile and that the sun goes around it each day as scripture says or do you have a religious like confidence that the earth revolves around the center of mass of earth-sun system(which is inside the sun)? Do you use science or scripture in your work?The idea that YEC can somehow be derived by legitimate interpretations of scientific data is in my opinion one of the big lies of YEC. The flood myth can only be "supported" by interpretations that ignore great masses of the data, twist or ignore some of the laws of science, use a long stream of ad hoc rationalizations that often conflict with each other and rely on logical fallacies, most often the fallacy of hasty generalization. Though you clearly don’t realize it your posts have demonstrated this over and over.Happy New Year to everyone.Randy[This message has been edited by Randy, 01-01-2003]