Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

Dear Edge;Hey, I maybe well read, but as I have stated before I am not a degreed geologist and I doubt that even top class geologists have memorized all the world's formations. I don't know everything and I don't pretend that I do. One of the reasons I post here is to learn from the feed back.Looking over our debate here, it seems you and I are having a problem with terms. Let's clear up some misconceptions, the term eolian includes particles that have been moved both by lofting and saltation. Lofting of sand is limited to about 40 microns, saltation is not and can and does move larger grains. Trying to use eolian deposits that contain saltated material to try to support a larger size limit for lofting, doesn't work. If you are to try to support a larger size limit for lofting, you will first have to show that lofting was the only way the deposit could have been made. But so far all of the dune deposits you have referred to, saltation has been involved, which defeats your argument. So as I see your position, you can either attempt to prove a much larger size limit on lofted particles or try to prove the material I have found was transported here by saltation. So which line of arguing do you wish to pursue?On side points, the Morrison Fm. has eolian sand dunes.

Dear Percipient;Yes you are right I have no problem with it. I will respond to your earlier post here since the first part of this thread is closed.Ah, the belief that the majority is always right, having the reassurance of being part of the herd, one's peer group, having everyone agree with your opinion. I would rather be right than popular. Proving a point of scientific debate is not dependent on how many believe it, if it was, the YECs would unfortunately probably win by being the majority here in the USA. As for improving my batting average, this board is only my sounding board, my next step is publishing some scientific papers. Which is why I have cut back on posting here to focus more time on that endeavor. I don't really expect my views to gain wide support, most people already have made up their minds on this issue one way or the other. But I do hope to provide an alternative viewpoint for those who are looking for one. Hopefully if I manage to get some papers published, I will have succeed in putting on the world stage a theory of the deluge that can be examined scientifically.

Dear Tranquility Base;The highest complement you can give a writer is to read their book, thank you very much TB! I would like to hear what you think of it, what you like and what you don't like as well, detailed negative criticism is usually the most informative feed back a writer can get. I was impressed with your two paragraph sum up of YEC flood geology, I will attempt to do the same for my book.The book "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood" is written from a biblical literal old earth prospective. The theory put forth is that the biblical flood occurred at the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age as the result of comet impacts on the continental ice sheets triggering a large scale release of water and ice into the seas, which resulted in a global rise in sea level that flooded the earth until the isostatic shift in water on the crust caused the land to reemerge. It was the comet impacts that resulted in the reported 40 days of rain and not water from 'above the heavens' as so many have thought. Many difficult to explain loose pieces of evidence from different fields are tied together to form a logical cohesive picture that not only answers how the deluge happened, but also explains other mysteries, such as the Pleistocene extinction event, the disappearance of ice age peoples and culture, and the genetic mismatch between ice age remains and modern populations. Evidence of super floods, the sudden release of very large amounts of melt water and ice are used to help support this theorized chain of events. The pattern of animal extinction and recolonization is used to support that the Pleistocene extinction was caused by a sudden rise in sea level, as is the pattern seen in human migration as well. Glacial erratics found in places where only floating ice could deposit them, and marine animals living in land locked bodies of water are also used to support a recent flood along with a host of other evidence from around the world.A fair amount of time is also spent on what the flood was not; an old earth is established, YEC flood theories are disproved, a global canopy is shown to be physically impossible and the preflood greenhouse theory is discredited. Once the red herrings are disposed of, the book then proceeds to logically plug together the pieces of real evidence to reveal what happened, the ice age is explained, impact events and their effects are discussed and the Pleistocene extinctions are tied in with the flood. The pieces are assembled in a step by step description of the deluge with supporting evidence for each step, and the geology of the flood is discussed in detail. There is even a fictionalized account about how Noah built the ark and what the flood was like for him and his family. Also presented is the author's research on finding marine diatoms in the Midwest in association with recent glacial deposits. The situation regarding the debate over the flood is summed up and in last chapter the author shows how it is possible to shift fact from fallacy in religious doctrines using the Bible.There is too much evidence cited in the book to refer to it all in such a short format. Plus I have since found much more, and there are some things in the book I would now change. I hope to write some scientific papers on some of my findings and then write a second edition which would include the corrections and the additional evidence. For example, my recent findings of microtektites in glacial till is solid evidence of recent comet impacts. So as you read my book please bare in mind that not everything is in the first edition.

Dear Edge;

quote:

---

Please document your statement that grains over 40 microns cannot be lofted. I actually have little problem with larger particles including drops of sea water containing diatoms being carried to heights that would make them transportable by strong winds.

---

The actual accepted range for the maximum size of particles that can be lofted or carried in suspension by the wind for great distances is about 40 to perhaps as much as 60 microns."Windblown particles on both Earth and Mars include material transported in suspension ("dust," or material <~60 microns in diameter), saltation ("sand," or material ~60—2000 microns in diameter), and creep or reptation (material >2000 microns in diameter)." http://www.agu.org/pubs/toc2002/sp/2000JE001481/2.shtml"There are three primary modes of grain transport: surface creep, saltation and suspension. Initial motion is achieved when induced aerodynamic forces exerted on a grain become instantly greater than the adhesive forces attaching them to the surface. 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." Page not found | Biological Systems Engineering | Washington State UniversityAccording to both these web sites, long distance lofting or suspension by the wind is only possible for particles less than about 60 microns. Diatoms and forams are less dense and may possibly have a larger maximum size that can be lofted by the wind. I have been unable to locate a listing of the maximum sizes found in ice cores far inland. So far the best information I have found is still the following quote." 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#fig1Indicating that for diatoms found in Antarctica inland ice cores, 40 microns is accepted as a limit for wind lofted transport. Due to the characteristics of diatoms and foram I would be willing to accept a some what larger maximum size for long distance wind lofting, but so far I have failed to find any evidence to support that conclusion. Additionally many of the micromarine fossils I have found are well above the maximum for wind lofting by a very wide margin which defeats arguing about the extract lofting size limit anyway since they would still be above even a generous higher limit.

quote:

---

Thirdly, you have yet to explain how diatoms got into ice formations at the south pole.

---

The last link above is from a web site on diatoms in ice cores in Antarctica, check it out, as they stated in the above quote, the diatoms they found were less than 40 microns which is small enough for suspension in the wind which allows for long distance transport. I would be interested if you can find any information on diatoms of much larger sizes found in inland ice cores that are viewed as wind lofted material. HINT! HINT! (This would a good way for you to prove me wrong on this point. Go for it Edge!)

Dear Edge;

quote:

---

I am not trying to prove anything

---

If you fail to support your position with evidence, you have already lost. You don't have to accept my findings of course, but you have failed to over turn them. I have to assume that the reason you have not provided evidence that over turns what I have been saying, is that you can't. So since I know you will never change you mind on this issue, we have reached the best out come I could have hoped for, you are someone that is totally opposed and yet you can offer no countervailing evidence. Perfect!

Dear Percipient;

quote:

---

The two are not disconnected. If your ideas are right, meaning that they're consistent with the known evidence, they will become, as you say, "popular", or to be more precise, "accepted".

---

In the long run yes, in the short run, not always true, remember Pasture and many others whom history did vindicate, but only later in time. Even if I was miraculously right on very point I have put forth, immediate acceptance is not assured.

quote:

---

Rafting. Seek examples in the news of rafted animals, particularly large ones, during floods.

---

Actually not that uncommon, short duration and short distance rafting occurs so often in floods that it is not news worthy. Longer distances are more impressive, recently in the Caribbean, Iguanas were rafted over 200 miles between two islands. (Science News, volume 154, p.267) The famous tortoises on the Galapagos islands are believed to have rafted from the South American main land, in fact rafting is how many island animals are believed to have arrived.

quote:

---

World-wide water cover. There's just no evidence of this. It's obvious connection to the Biblical flood will cause automatic rejection of any papers you submit in scientific arenas.

---

Connection to the biblical flood will cause automatic rejection? Does that sound fair and unbiased? If that were true, perhaps there are a multitude of unpublished papers that would have proven the flood as fact a long time ago. I am hoping that you are wrong on this point and papers with solid supporting evidence get published whether they have popular support or not. If you are right, it would show that I did the right thing in self publishing my book since according to you, I had no other option.

quote:

---

Depression of sea floors and elevation of mountains. There's just no evidence of this. It, too, has an obvious connection to the Biblical flood will cause automatic rejection of any papers you submit in scientific arenas.

---

Actually many mountains all over the world are currently under going a slow progressive uplift, they get a little bit taller every year. The converse of that is of course if some areas are going up, others are going down. You may want to look up the words 'isostasy' and 'epeirogeny'.

quote:

---

Sub-glacial water causing world-wide flood. This just doesn't seem possible. There was recent scientific news about uncovering evidence that the massive collapse and concurrent release of water beneath a Canadian glacier near the St. Laurence around 10K years ago caused sea-levels world-wide to rise 1 meter. You need far more water than that. You also need to explain why we can find evidence of a release raising sea-levels 1 meter, but no evidence of a far, far larger release raising sea levels hundreds of meters.

---

Simple, off the scale. Where do you look for the shoreline of a global flood? Movement of post ice age sea level in connection with the deluge was to quick to leave well defined shoreline erosion. I also now look more towards a large number of Carolina Bay type impacts on the ice sheets as being the major source of initial flood water which in turn raised sea level high enough to trigger the domino change reaction of surging ice due to rising water.

quote:

---

Transport of diatoms. These are so small, so light, so easily transported, your claims just make no common sense. Comparing them to far more dense sand-grains seems especially nonsensical.

---

If you have been following my exchange with Edge you would know that he has been unsuccessful in this line of argument. He has been unable to provide any evidence of long distance lofting of diatoms and forams in the larger sizes that I have found. You are welcome to try. I would be most interested if you can find any information on a larger diatom 'maximum' lofting size. I have been unable to find any evidence of lofting of larger diatoms or forams, but that is always the problem, how do you prove a negative?

quote:

---

Comets. They were supposedly massive, causing the simultaneous collapse of entire ice sheets with the release of enough water to flood the world. Where's the evidence? Craters? Isotopic signatures? Anything concrete at all?

---

Funny you should ask, how about microtektites? Do a work search and find my earlier post on this. Craters, we have plenty, remember the Carolina Bays? On Isotopic signatures, give me some time, pretty expensive hardware and testing is involved, but perhaps in the future I will be able to find this as well.

Dear Edge;On sandgrains/diatoms winding lofting, in earlier posts, I also referred to lofting of water droplets which are of course lighter than Diatoms and forams. But you seemed to have ignored that information as you do with much of what I post. For example, I have posted a great deal of evidence supporting the flood, yet you say I haven't posted any. What you mean of course is that I haven't posted any evidence that you accept, and since you blindly reject anything that tends to support a global flood, you reject all the evidence I cite. Then you turn around and claim that the reason you don't believe what I am saying is because I haven't posted any supporting evidence. Basically this is on a level with you plugging your ears with wax and then complaining that I am not speaking loudly enough. The problem isn't on my end. With solving any puzzle, one has to take the pieces and see how they fit together to form a complete picture. But you keep tossing away the pieces before you can see how they fit and you are convinced that you already know what the picture looks like, and therefor my solution can't possibly be right and yet the pieces do fit. But convinced you already know better, you refuse to even take a look and I wonder why, perhaps a bit of fearful doubt perhaps? I am glad that you question my claim of finding marine diatoms here in the Midwest, for it means that you recognize the import of what it means even if you deny it. I have also enjoyed your refusal to look at any pictures of them, since that would make it harder for you to deny their existence. Just pointing out that I am not the one wearing the blinders.

Dear Percy;I haven't been ignoring the feed back from my sounding board, that would defeat its purpose, I just don't happen to agree with some of the feed back. For no one has yet supplied convincing counter evidence or more logical explanations and I have not been looking for support in the 'absence of evidence', rather I have posted a great deal of evidence supporting the flood, yet you say I haven't. What you mean of course is that I haven't posted any evidence that you accept, and since you blindly reject anything that tends to support a global flood, you reject all the evidence. Then you turn around and claim that the reason you don't believe what I am saying is because I haven't posted any supporting evidence. Basically this is on a level with you plugging your ears with wax and then complaining that I am not speaking loudly enough. The problem isn't on my end. With solving any puzzle, one has to take the pieces and see how they fit together to form a complete picture. But you keep tossing away the pieces before you can see how they fit and you are convinced that you already know what the picture looks like, and therefor my solution can't possibly be right and yet the pieces do fit. But convinced you already know better, you refuse to even take a look and I wonder why, perhaps a bit of fearful doubt that my 'irrelevant minutia' mite be relevant after all and may be the start of cracks in your wall of disbelief? Frankly for counter arguments you have had little to offer other than repetitious repetitions of blanket rejections of any global flood and they have been devoid of any supporting evidence, and why should I find that convincing anyway? Your counter arguments having consisting of little more than 'no there wasn't a flood' have hardly been much of an intellectual challenge let alone persuasive. You have failed to built a solid attack based on evidence, attacking with your opinion is like blowing hot air, you have to be kidding, you haven't made a dent and no wonder. At least take a hint from geology and throw some rocks, refer to this or that deposit for evidence like others have, try to put something solid into your argument for a change.

Dear Tranquility Base;I am disappointed that my 'absolutely sure fire' disproof of YEC has apparently fallen somewhat short of the mark, I am hoping however that once you have finished the book and see the overall picture, you will see why YEC is unnecessary. As for helping YEC, the best thing would be a complete switch to OEC, second best would be to at least accept that the geologic column and the fossil record was not created by the flood. That would leave the evidence of the great age of the earth as having been created earlier such as when the earth was created. I still find that completely illogical, but it would be a much better position than the current YEC position of dumping it all on the flood. Since the flood was a natural event, it is all too easy to look at the evidence and disprove flood YEC theories, while attributing everything to direct divine creation is unassailable by scientific methods since the supernatural is outside the scope of science. This would have the effect of YEC stepping out the back door of the shooting range and out of the range of the scientific big guns. Saying that God created all the prehuman fossils and rock, and placed them all just so, to make the earth look old, is intellectually distasteful. But it is a position that can not be challenged successfully by examining the evidence since everything would have been created miraculously.One other point YEC followers would do well to take to heart, is that if the earth appears to be old and if God really did created it very recently, he obviously then had to have wanted to make it look that way. Then if that was indeed the case, YECs should stop trying to be smarter than God by looking for 'mistakes' that supposedly real a young earth, for if it was God's intent to create a young earth that looked old, don't you think he could have got it right? Each time a YEC comes up with a new way of revealing a young earth, they are in effect finding fault with God, "Look here is another thing he missed!" Rather YECs should embrace all evidence of an old earth as proof of the perfection with which God made a young earth look old. Perfection is in the details. Perhaps you can see why I find YEC intellectually distasteful, God is a god of order and logic, not a god of deception, an old looking earth is just simply old. In the end I can see no way for YEC to avoid deception without deigning itself due to this basic conflict between YEC and the earth itself.What is an IMO?Where or what is the 'prophetic description of uniformitarianism' at 2 Pet 3?

Dear Edge;

quote:

---

Nonsense, you have posted information in support of a slightly higher sea level after the ice age. Nothing more.

---

'Slightly higher'? We have been arguing about evidence of marine flooding in the Midwest at a location that is currently at an elevation of 1000 ft. Much of the earlier cited evidence on this thread was found at elevations of several thousand feet above current sea level. If by 'slightly higher' you mean a few thousand feet, I guess we agree, it just depends on your definition of 'slight'.I would be happy to post some of my pictures of marine diatoms I have found here in Wisconsin. [click on picture for larger versions. --Admin]

​

​

[Reduced size of images. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 11-28-2002]

Dear Percy;You have to remember that the creationists posting here seem to be all YECs. I have had conversations with a number of OECs and they seem all think that I am on the right track. One was a soil engineer and was quite interested and excited about reading my book and others have been very successful and well educated individuals. So don't be fooled by the lack of enthusiasm from the YECs here on the board, the off board response from OECs has been very favorable. In discussing the concept of a recent global flood with OECs, none have found any fault with my overall theory. Considering the favorable responses I have gotten so far, and the supporting evidence, I see no reason to change my position. I am always aware of the fact that I could be in complete error on a number of points, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. One of the main reasons I post here is that if I have made a mistake, someone will point it out to me. I feel that if people like you, who are very much opposed to any notion of a global flood, are unable to find specific flaws, I must be pretty close to what really happened. As to why other people like you, 'don't get it', I find that perfectly understandable considering the subject. A very high rate of rejection is to be expected, as the amount of supporting evidence is increased the rejection rate will decrease only slightly if at all. Even if I had tons of iron clad evidence, most would still reject what I have to say on the flood. Which is why when I have asked what kind of evidence would be acceptable as proof of a global flood, I never got any specific answers. It is impossible to change a person's mind when they can't even conceive of the possibility that they mite be wrong. My research is on going, and as the results keep coming in, the evidence will just keep increasing. But it will never reach the infinite amount it would take to change a person's mind that is already made up. For example look at the pictures in my post to Edge, photographic evidence and yet it will no doubt not be enough to convince ether of you.

Dear Edge;Yes! You make perfect sense. The opportunity exists here to take an event that has so far remained an article of faith for some or been written off as a myth by others and study it scientifically. The limitations represented by the data are real and allow mapping the true extent of this late ice age marine transgression. I see several possible out comes from such a mapping, global coverage at all elevations, coverage only in non-glacial areas or possibly coverage only up to a certain elevation level. Conducting a mapping survey using soil samples from around the world is the next logical step in my research. As you have pointed out, due to the very nature of the research I am involved in, there is the possibility of discovering the true extent of the biblical deluge, which of course may turn out to be different than what may be expected. But I have yet to confront such a limitation and the overall pattern of evidence suggests that the flood was probably in the range of the first two possibilities listed above. If it turns out to be that the third possibility, a limited global flood, is what the evidence supports, I will have accept that. But until then, considering that the available evidence that I have collected so far that indicates a truly global event, I will continue to support a universal global flood unless it is proven otherwise. So you are very correct, by following my line of inquiry I will hopefully be able to discover the true extent of the deluge.Another point to consider is that once the flood (limited or not) is supported by a mapping of marine traces, study of the flood is transferred from the realm of religion to the realm of science. The flood would then be a natural event that the details of would be far better understood by the scientists studying it then religious people for whom it is a matter of faith, the scientists would become the flood experts not the YECs. This would mean the YECs could no longer use the flood as a way of trying to explain the geologic column, for science would then know the extent and conditions of the flood and would be in a position prove what happen in the flood and what did not. As long as science rejects the flood as a non event, the YECs can say whatever they want because as a matter of faith many people accept the flood as real, which since science rejects it, it predisposes them to side with the irrational YECs. But if the flood is accepted by science, the YECs are in trouble. For then people who believe in the flood have no reason to accept crazy YEC flood theories any more. Then if science can accurately map the extent of the flood and it's effects, the YECs are doomed, for their ideas would have to face real scientific evidence on a playing field that the public would accept as being level. This would finish most of the current support for YEC and reduce it to only a few small fundamentalist groups and YEC would no longer be an issue.

Dear Tranquility Base;OK, verse 4 in 2 Peter chapter 3. That verse is referring to the world of mankind not the literal earth. What Peter was saying is that there would be those who would deny the fulfillment of the prophetic signs showing that we live near the conclusion of the system of things. Just as the earth or world that is described as being destroyed in this chapter refers to the symbolic earth of mankind and not the literal planet itself. Look at verse 6 which states that the world of Noah's day was destroyed by water, now the earth wasn't destroyed in the flood, but the earthly system of men was. The fact that the Bible's descriptions of the destruction of the earth only refer to our present earthly system of things or the human world is highlighted by scriptures that refer to the literal earth stating it will never be destroyed such as Ecclesiastes 1:4 "the earth abideth forever." Therefor there is nothing in 2 Peter that can be used against uniformitarianism.Actually I considered YEC flood theories early on in my search for evidence of the biblical flood and a simple examination of the evidence rapidly eliminated them as possibilities. I don't have a degree in geology, but I have read pretty extensively on the subject, and I can assure you as someone who would dearly like to see what you are looking for, that it just isn't there. Even in your own words in support of catastrophic creation of the geologic column reveal the impossibility of it. For even if you were right that most of GC was created by paleocurrents, what about the rest of the GC? Failure to account for all of it is still failure. I am aware of the 'flood with breaks or tides' theory but as so very many have pointed out it doesn't work. The required gaps are far far too long to have fit in the time frame of the flood. Then we have the problem that many of the deposits that you attribute to paleocurrents could have only been deposited by material being eroded over a great period of time from a source located above water, which doesn't fit with the flood ether. On the study of paleocurrents I would recommend the book "The New Catastrophism; The importance of the rare event in geological history" by Derek Ager. I know many YECs misquote Ager all the time, but I suggest you actually sit down and read his book and see what he really has to say. I think many of the geologists who post on this board should read this book also, for it does highlight the impact of catastrophic events on the GC, but as stated in the title these are rare events. Once you see these events in context, you can see for yourself how they were created. But if you only look at the deposit by itself without considering the context, it is like that verse in 2 Peter, you misunderstand it if you fail to consider the context it is found in.Now on the Grand Canyon, a wonderful place I hope to visit someday, I do have the book "Grand Canyon Geology" edited by Beus and Morales. A rather long and technical book, but an examination of the evidence reveals no possibility for rapid creation of the canyon or of the material that it is cut in. I have seen that others have already posted on the lava dams in the canyon and the lengthy time periods involved, and others have already pointed out that some of the layers are wind blown deposits not water deposited. If you would like to discuss the fern deposit that would be fine, but we will need some more information on it, such as what layer is it found in? I should also point out that 'ferns' seems to imply a deposit that dates from millions of ago and will only be found in the appropriate layers, now if all these layers that YEC claim were created in the flood, why are the ferns only in one layer? Plus I suspect that the ferns are rooted, they were buried by sediments where they grew. Yet the YEC is probably claiming that the layers below the ferns were created by the flood too. See as soon as you start thinking about this stuff in detail the impossible problems start popping up.A simple point to remember about the GC is that we only see part of it. If a vast deposit is laid down, only the parts that are not eroded away are preserved. Since erosion washes things from high elevations to low elevations, we see mostly things in the GC that were deposited in low places like flood plains or off shore deposits. Since the lowest elevations are frequently flooded or even underwater at time, this results in most of the GC that is seen having an association with water. But that doesn't mean they were created all at once in the flood. For example the silt and sand deposits, the only way they could have been created is for uplifted areas such as mountains to have the rocks that they are made up of, to be weathered away and washed down rivers towards the sea. For the source of the silt and sand was of course rock, the rock had to be broken down and the material had to be moved by rivers. The trouble for the YEC flood theories is there is no way the flood could have broken down the rocks into sand and silt, and there is no way for the flood to have moved the material. The transport of material is depended on it's size and the speed of the water carrying it. As others have pointed out there is no way the flood could have had such strong currents to smash rock layers to sand and keep them in suspension while still and at the same time be clam enough for the fine silt deposits to settle out. In many deposits there are alternating layers of sand and silt, which would require alliterating periods of fast and slow water. Some of these deposits have hundreds or even thousands of such layers, and the problem is if the water slowed for the silt to drop out, the sand falls out first. Which means there would be no sand left in suspension for the next sand layer. So then you have to invoke a strong current in another part of the earth that picked up sand and carried it into the silted area and deposited it without disturbing the silt. As you can see it gets harder and harder to explain using YEC, but under geology it is simple, in normal times the river deposited silt, then in times of heavy rains the increased water flow carried sand. The pattern is simply the pattern of floods that have occurred. Deposits such as this are obviously created slowly over time as shown by their many layers. A YEC flood deposit would be one huge deposit with large rocks on the bottom grading up through sand and fine silt on top and would be found earth wide including on the ocean floors. Yet such a massive deposit is not found. We do find turbidity current deposits, which do resemble the expected YEC flood deposit, but we only find them where we expect to find them and they frequently are found on top of a number of layers YEC claim were created by the floor or we find them beneath flood claimed layers. If the turbidity currents were flood created, the layers would be included in the turbidity layer and would not be found as a separate deposit.Due to the above basic impossibilities, I believe there is no way of formulating a workable YEC flood theory. The best that YEC can do is to create a sophism, which is an argument that outwardly looks true but is really meant to deceive since it is false. Since the evidence disproves YEC the YECs like to stir up the water and muddy the view so hopefully no one will notice, so please don't be fooled by them, take a unbiased look at the details and think about.TB, I admire your unyielding defense of what you believe, but I believe in the flood as well. I just believe it happened differently. Look at it this way, God used natural means in doing many things, why not the creation of the GC as well?

Dear Percy;I have to take my hat off to you, that was an extremely reasonable and well written post, I am very impressed. I must also apologise for thinking you were being unreasonable and prejudiced in your position.Elephants and giraffes did not need to be rafted through the flood, there was an ark. For now I prefer to just stick with the geology of the flood, since it makes no sense to argue in favor of the ark if the flood is not accepted. At this point arguing about the ark with you would be like arguing about the color of unicorns. First I will need to supply sufficient evidence to convince you of the occurrence of the deluge, before I could try convincing you of the former existence of an ark.The reference I used for identification was mainly "Diatoms of North America" by William C. Vineyard, published by MadRiverPress@msn.com, costs about 12 dollars. Here is a picture I got off the web of one of the Diatoms I posted earlier, Asterolampra Marylandica.

From this web site. http://thalassa.gso.uri.edu/flora/genera/asterpra.htmOn the Diatom Grammatophora Marina I have been unable to locate on the web a end view simular to the one I shot. There is nice drawing (167a) on page 117 in "Diatoms of North America" that matches up very well.Here is a picture of Thalassionema Nitzchioldes, I was disappointed that the small end spine is not visible. There is a better view of it in "Diatoms of North America" on page 103, drawing 104a.

From this web site http://r.searchhippo.com/r3.php?i=1&q=thalassionema+nitzc...%3A%2F%2Fwww.soton.ac.uk%2F%7Eibg%2Fa-z.html
As we have been discussing, the limit for wind suspension seems to be about 40 to 57 microns, larger material must have be deposited by other means. I have also been focusing my research on marine traces above this size range. I also am working on collecting and analyzing samples form other sites to map the extent of the flooding. Judging from your last post, I think you will find the results exhilarating. You are so very right about the fascinating impact this could have on geology and archeology.

Dear Percy;As I stated earlier, there is no point in me trying to convince you that there was an ark since you don't accept that there even was a flood. I will say that the first thing I did was to take note of all the problems posted about the ark at such sites as talk.org and I addressed each one in my book. I have a whole chapter on the ark and I discuss the various issues. I have also, based on the evidence, come to some different conclusions about what was on the ark and what was not, than is currently believed by many. This is a side issue for a later time, but let me say there is evidence that indicates that there really was a literal ark.As for "religious affiliation" or a "degree of familiarity with science" being needed for acceptance of my theory. I would have to say a basic understanding of science is necessary for accepting my flood theory rather than a religious outlook. Believing in the historicalness of the Bible is great for accepting the occurrence of the flood, but agreeing with my theory being the manner in which it happened is another. Many people believe in the flood, but that doesn't mean they are going to accept my theory as how it happened. It takes an understanding of the science involved to grasp the mechanics connected with flooding the world and then unflooding it. Religious people tend to have a habit of saying God did it, and they leave it at that, it takes a bit of scientific interest to ask how. Also belief in the Bible account is not necessary since the evidence speaks for it self. The evidence supports a post or late ice age global marine transgression that flooded enough of the earth's surface to cause the late ice age extinctions and leave behind marine traces in high places.

quote:

---

these pictures are too dissimilar to conclude they're both of the same species of marine diatom (or even that they're both diatoms).

---

I am a little bit puzzled by your response. I assume you accept that the picture on the right is of the marine diatom Asterolampra Marylandica, you can check the web site that it is taken from if you doubt it. As for similarities, you need to remember that the two pictures were taken with two different microscopes under different lighting conditions, and the samples have had dissimilar histories. Notice the tannic acid staining in the left image, and that the diatom is not laying perfectly flat as in the picture on the right. The right image is also of a diatom in very good condition while the one on the left is worn and old. Also notice that both images have apparently been taken at the same magnification and the images appear to be the same size. (I used 1000x and if looks that the other picture was as well.) Then there is the fact that both have the same round disk shape and both show a nearly identical spoked shape inside. The differences between the two specimens is very small, and is probably due to the differences listed above and the difference in the collection sites and the different times in which the diatoms lived. It should also be remembered that species identification is based on an archetypical specimen chosen to represent the average appearance of the species, individual specimens will vary slightly in their appearance. Look at the human race for an example, let's say we chose one individual to represent what an average human looks like. Now if we pick another person who happens to look a bit different from our example, that doesn't mean the second person isn't human. Minor differences are to be expected, the general form is what has to be compared, and the general form of the two specimens in question are very nearly identical. Or I will put it to you this way, if the picture on the left isn't Asterolampra Marylandica, then what is it?On the second set of pictures, the left image is of a broken end cap only, and the image on the right doesn't show the end cap details that were used to make the identification. The picture on the left was taken with an optical microscope while the right image was taken with a electron microscope, this also makes comparing the images more difficult. So on this set of pictures I will have to concede that the images are too different for the average person to see the similarity. And to tell you the truth, the lack of the end spine in the right hand pictures has made me question the quality of the reference book that I used in identification. I made this identification two years ago and I also was using another book that had better pictures, but I can't recall if this diatom was identified using that book or another for that matter. So the identification of the species of this diatom is somewhat in question unless I can find another reference that backs up the one I have on hand. But I have no questions about the first one, Asterolampra Marylandica at all.I agree with you on the desirability of having better pictures, posting them seems to have had a bigger impact than I had thought. So I will have to try to get more pictures of better quality. Was using the microscope today and did see some diatoms I have not seen before, I hope the pictures turn out.Carbon dating diatoms? Dating an individual diatom is of course impossible, they are far to small and being comprised of silicon have little or no carbon to date. Dating of diatoms is generally done by dating the material they are found in, dating the soil here is a no brainier since this is a glacial till soil area created by the Wisconsin Ice Age. The one possible problem with the till is of course it is the ground up remains of things that existed before the glaciers came south grinding up the landscape. But as I have already pointed out a number of times and you can see it for yourself, look at the background of the slide pictures. The small glassy material in the slide is glacial flour ground by the glaciers, chances are that anything as frail as a diatom would have been ground even finer than the solid quartz grains in the background. So sometime after the retreat of the ice sheet, the marine diatoms where deposited here. Some idea of how long they have been here can be inferred from amount of tannic acid staining seen in some of the diatoms. That brackets the time occurrence of a marine transgression to between the end of the last ice age and a time long enough ago for tannic acid to stain glassy diatoms. Then there are the historical accounts that don't mention such flooding which a major rise in sea level would need to predate. Which would push the time frame back to near the end of the ice age, which in terms of the dating systems used today, would set a time window of a few thousand years at the end of the ice age.Wm Scott