So what about SILT and dating????

Percy,You asked: I'm not sure if this is the type response you are seeking for your question, but here are some of my thoughts on the matter.I think it quite possible that the rate of deposition may have had a short period (at some point after the Flood) of tremendous deposition.Of course, I believe that the oceans are a result of the Flood waters shearing the basement rocks (forming the abyss), the remaining water on the continents would have rushed off at that time and perhaps later as natural dams (i.e., the mountain range at the Grand Canyon) broke.I am certainly no expert, but the Mississippi River/Delta system does not appear to have been a broken dam situation. So, I would figure the initial delta to have been formed from run-off after the shear event and, possibly, a corresponding continental tilting to make the water flow even faster. Also, if this was indeed, one of the "end" events of the Flood, then the water was likely muddy (i.e., full of material to deposit).At any rate, what's the guarantee that the deposition rate is constant through the ages? Are you sure there were no catastrophic events (even just local ones) that caused a much higher rate of deposition for a period, thus making it APPEAR some 160,000+ years old when Joe the Dating Guy comes along and pulls out his Constant- Deposition-Rate yardstick?If you are familiar with Dalrymple's work, do you know how he arrived at his deposition rate? Did he use a constant rate? What was that rate based on ~ present deposition rates?Edited to add:
Also, (as I am not an expert in deltas and such) is Dalrymple or others able (or claim to be able) to figure out deposition rates for various levels (e.g., higher and lower levels) of deltas?Just some thoughts.P.S. ~ Sorry for barging in. I realize you were asking TechChristian (sp?), so I hope neither you nor he mind me also responding to your question.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-01-2004 06:06 PM

Are these diatoms, by any chance?Also, are we certain that the Mississippi Delta sediments are upon this kilometer of abyssal sediments of fine materials and shelled organisms?Not saying this utterly changes everything, just asking.Also,
Do we know what is under the kilometer of fine sediments?This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-01-2004 06:14 PM

Percy,Thanks for this tip: It's very handy.

Coragyps, Now, here is a bit of thought on this point.The pre-Flood world was, from a biblical account, much different than the post-Flood world is. In particular, it was more hospitable to life (which one would expect). So, assuming the Biblical account to be true (which I am not expecting you to do, of course), one might conclude that even what we might consider "wildly favorable conditions" might not even come close to the original environment in which these little guys lived at the time.Fossilized insects are, in some cases, enormous compared to today's insects of similar species, suggesting higher air pressure and/or oxygen levels (or some such environmental difference). Perhaps the pre-Flood sea (remember, I'm assuming the biblical account to be true) was so much more richly oygenated or the "waters above the firmament" filtered out the UV radiation much more effectively (or some other significant difference in environmental variables, perhaps a combination of some of these). At any rate, I think one gets the point here...there was some major difference between the pre-Flood and post-Flood environments.Now with that in mind, perhaps there were LOTS of these diatoms and coccolitho-thingies...perhaps even the pre-Flood sea was saturated with them (my own musings there ~ please don't hold this thought against other literalists). Now along comes the Flood and KILLS most all of these in various points in the flood(for instance, through releasing heated subterranean water or some other catastrophic event). Then these little fellas make a huge, deep layer during the Flood and probably continue settling out for some time after the Flood (plus whatever level has accrued in the millenia between the Flood and today). Jump ahead a few thousand years and Joe the Dating Guy sees the kilometer of abyssal plain sediments and pulls out his Constant-Rate-of-Deposition yard stick...Just some musing there, for what it's worth, on the little skeletal creatures in the sediments. Now the fine sediments...I don't know.Edited to remove a sentence intended to be funny but that could be taken wrong. Hope no one who read it did take it as anything but jest.Edited again for clarity (as though I could somehow make myself clear).This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-01-2004 10:28 PM

Pink Sasquatch,So, I went to your link. Not too far into it, I came across the following: There are terrible misunderstanding of Creationists' claims here. I wanted to clear them up a bit. I'm sure the author will be interested and will want to quickly correct these glaring errors. Apparently, this Talk Origins' author thinks that Creationists might make one of TWO arguments for the Mississippi delta.

• The Magical Hole Theory
• The Amazing Sediment Theory

When misstated as above, the Creationists' argument does look foolish. Most people, and rightly so, would be a bit suspicious of the Magical Hole Theory. And no one with a moderate understanding of the physical world would think the Mississippi is going to deposit any sediments any significant height above sea level, much less 7 miles above sea-level (as in the Amazing Sediment Theory).So, what do Creationists teach about the Mississippi delta...here is my attempt at stating the Creationists claims on the matter:Creationists teach that what is now the ocean floor was sheared by the weight of the Flood waters (supposedly the oceanic crustal areas are thinner than continental crustal areas) creating the abyss areas of the oceans. Melting of the polar ice caps, which are thought to be of Flood origin also (in the Creationists' view), over the millenia since the Flood are thought to have raised the ocean level significantly making the continental shelf areas of the oceans. (My own musings lead me to think that, perhaps, the initial run-off may also have had somewhat to do with the formation of the continental shelf areas as well).At any rate, the Gulf of Mexico is proposed to be part of that sheared area. There is no imaginary hole proposed, the Gulf of Mexico is the hole. And since there is a giant hole (the Gulf of Mexico), there is no need for Amazing Sediments to pile up 7 miles above sea level or "sink down" (as the hole ~ the Gulf of Mexico) is already there.The Creationists also think that corresponding continental uplifting occurred during the shear event increasing the run-off potential, to a large degree in many cases as some mountain ranges, particularly those parallel to the shores, are thought to have been formed mostly during this shear event.Certainly Creationists have not proposed magical holes in front of the world's major rivers. However, many major river mouths are indeed presumed to have been affected by this shear event(s), as the Flood and the shear event(s) are obviously thought to have occurred globally. I think the major rivers (as far as the paths they follow are concerned) and their mouths (as far as location is concerned) are actually presumed to have been created, or at least largely influenced, by this shear-uplift-runoff event(s). I have heard that many major river mouths have corresponding diagonal canyons in the ocean (I assume it is meant they run diagonally down the abyss, but am not certain), which apparently adds some credence to the shear event idea.Thanks for the link. Hopefully, such outrageous misstatements of Creationists' views are not the norm at Talk Origins.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-01-2004 10:15 PM

Wow...You must excuse me a bit then.I had no idea that the delta had caused the Gulf Floor to sink in SEVEN MILES!I was under the impression that the delta was seven miles high from Gulf floor to sea level.But how is this a problem? Some 4000 to 5000 years are proposed to have past since that event. Is it impossible for this warping to have occurred (if not in the final events of Flood, which I would tend to think) during that 4000 - 5000 years with the non-Flood geologic processes we see at work today (assuming, under the Flood model of course, that an initial, massive amount of sediment was deposited quickly)?So, then, as far as my saying he was misstating Creationists' view points: I appear to be wrong...apparently, it is I who misunderstood what he meant by "hole."My apologies, then, to the author Dave E. Matson on that point.He did however make it appear we propose "magical" holes in front of major rivers. Creationists simply don't do that. Hazarding a guess, and I've never read about this subject before, I would imagine the entire earth, undergoing a similar trauma worldwide, would produce similar results at places where major river mouths formed (in the Creationists' view ~ but that's my musing on the matter).

I do intend to re-read the article (it had many other points, but I only glanced at a few).Well, while this was tremendously embarrassing ~ mainly because I went off half-cocked and accused someone of misstating while it was I who was misunderstanding him ~ I have learned about the deep depressions major river deltas have caused in the ocean floors.I have also been reminded how easy it is to misunderstand someone.Too late to continue, I'm afraid...should been in bed two hours ago...need a "sleepy" graemlin here.

Hey NosyNed,Now I've been chuckling all day about this: I chuckle not because you don't have valid opinions on the subject, not at all (rather I found your analysis informative, thanks). It does, however, remind me of an old commercial where a fellow who played a doctor on some TV show starred in an aspirin (or some such medicine) commercial and he said, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." Presumably this was a enough reason to purchase brand x over brand y or whatever. Haw! Anyway, rephrased a bit you kinda said, "I'm not a geologist, but I play one at EvC." Sorry, but that just tickles me .But, in all seriousness, I think your point about cracking rock is quite valid and answers my question quite well about could the depression have occurred in the past 4000 - 5000 years. It certainly appears unlikely.But I've been musing quite a bit about this, today (so if it's too ridiculous, don't hold it against the other Creationists or the Bible ~ it's my own musing).So here's my musing, for what it's worth:Some assumptions (which at present I simply am unprepared to offer mechanisms and such for):

• There was a global Flood that lasted about a year
• This Flood deposited soft sediments pretty much everywhere
• Near the end of the Flood there was a shear event (i.e., the oceanic crust sheared from the continental crust sinking down forming a place to hold the Flood waters ~ in other words, the ocean basins formed)
• The shear event, which was global, caused corresponding uplift in the continents (in various directions or axis) causing not only mountains to form but also major river vallies from which the Flood waters and the fresher, soft sediments generally ran off into the new basins and rapidly so.

I am not necessarily asking people to take those assumptions seriously, I just am not prepared to delve into all the issues corresponding with those issues at this time (if ever ~ though I might try).Now, with the assumptions out of the way...would the shear event have caused enough heat to soften the rock on both sides of the shear (particularly the thinner oceanic base rock) so that the quickly dumped sediments would indeed have depressed the soft rock along shear line?I don't know how deep the Gulf of Mexico is, but the shear would have meant that oceanic base rock scrubbed continental base rock for at least that length. That seems in my mind to be a significant source of heat (probably someone says it would instantly vaporize the oceans or such...).With this view I am seeing a quick succession of events...almost a single event...as far as the shear and the sediment dumping (and I'm not sure I'm painting a good picture of that event yet).Anyway, just a thought and I would enjoy seeing it critically examined as NosyNed did my It-Warped-Since-the-Flood theory, which I think he pretty much nixed, but I recall saying I felt like it was a Flood related event anyway.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-04-2004 05:35 PM

Hi Roxrkool,You write:

quote:

---

Your second assumption is sediment being deposited globally. This would be a very good piece of evidence if the YECs could ever find the strata and correlate it. And since it happened only 4,000 years ago, it shouldn't be that hard.

---

YECs believe that nearly ALL of the sedimentary rock layers and their fossils (as well as most igneous rock and any fossils they might contain) are a direct result of the Flood. I, for one, can certainly see some fossils/layers/igneous deposits having been made in the intervening years due to catastrophes in the intervening years between the Flood and today, but I think these would be a very small percentage compared to those laid down by the Flood itself.You write:

quote:

---

As the waters deepend, and lost energy, I would expect deposition of sediment to reflect this gradual loss of energy by forming an immense, laterally-continuous, fining-upwards sequence all over the planet...

---

Would formations like the Grand Canyon be considered such a structure (it's an honest question: I would tend to think it is, but I certainly haven't studied the canyon in detail ~ just read a few articles or such)? Do you know of any immense structures that do show upward-fining? I think plenty show laterally-continuous (or at least I thought so). I know that clay is very common just under the soil here in Northwest Florida (and goes down for some distance) and that would also seem to be another upward-fining example to me, but if you have a take on these, I'd definitely be glad to hear them. Just some musing on my part.You write:

quote:

---

Here is another chance for YECs to find evidence in support of a large flood - continental material contaminating the world's ocean basins.

---

Well, oceanic sediments is a subject of which I am almost completely ignorant; so I can't offer anything on this one.You write:

quote:

---

I'm having a hard time visualizing this shear event.

---

Yes, I don't feel I did a good job describing it, but it might not matter (as you shall see a bit later in this post).You write:

quote:

---

The only way I can wee you forming a 'new' basin is to somehow form voids below the ocean basins - sort of like limestone dissolution or maybe displacing all the magma below the surface. Otherwise, all you'd be doing by forming 'shears' and sliding rocks around on top of them is to slosh the water around by displacing it. You'd create some humongous tidal waves, but not ocean basins.

---

Well, here you appear to actually be trying to see if there is any way to make my "theory" plausible, and I think that is tremendous of you. Thanks.Yes, I was thinking of voids being formed by limestone dissolution (or some such thing)under the ocean basins and the ocean basins collapsing everywhere there was a void under it. However, it is this paragraph of yours that made me go dig a little deeper into what I was saying because something was puzzling me...So far as I can tell, I was mixing two different Flood theories in my mind. I THOUGHT I was rattling off Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, but I don't see him mentioning any shear event (or anything similar). But I have heard this shear idea mentioned (and along with Walt Brown's hydroplate theory in the same setting, I think; thus, the confusion on my part ~ I guess). However, as I skimmed through Walt Brown's hydroplate theory (I still need to go and read it more in-depth), it dawned on me...the oceanic crust and the continental crust are TWO DIFFERENT crust materials (basalt and granite). So, as I was envisioning this "shear" it would require the two crusts be the same material. I already knew that oceanic crust and continental crust were different materials, I just never thought about how that affects my shear "theory." Also working against my shear "theory" is the fact that it appears that the basalt goes UNDER the continents.So now, all I know is I don't know as much as I thought I did.You write:

quote:

---

The problem is that any orogenic episode related to these sorts of events would probably form metamorphic cored mountain ranges at continental margins - like the coast ranges - not in the center. This theory would have to explain young mountain ranges like the Rockies located in the center of the North American continent or ranges like the Sierra that are cored by immense felsic plutons rather than metamorphic rock.

---

I am interested in seeing if any Flood model can explain such features also.You write:

quote:

---

We would have to know what the physiography of the planet was prior to the flood also.

---

Currently, I am largely with Walt Brown's ideas (although I believe in the canopy of water above the earth and Walt Brown does not), but I ought to study his proposals more carefully before I discuss them at any length. I think I do have a general idea of how he proposes the earth was before the Flood, though. It is the events after the initiation of the Flood that get me muddled at times (due to the volume of words and my short attention span).You write:

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the last part of your statement...

---

On this thread, I was attempting to see if the Flood model could explain the seven mile depression in the oceanic crust beneath the Mississippi's delta. I still think it can, but, right now, I doubt the idea of the shear event as I was proposing it (I'm not saying there wasn't a shear event, but it does seem implausible to me right now ~ particularly as I was envisioning it).Thanks.

Thanks for the encouragement

Hi IrishRockHound,You write:

quote:

---

...Literalist, although you might think your Flood scenario is plausible, we still do not see any evidence for it in the geological record. A single flood event would produce a single sediment layer; there is nothing to suggest that a larger flood would produce anything other than a larger layer.

---

I can certainly understand why you might think this. However, I consider almost the entire geological record to be the evidence. As far as floods producing single layers, this is simply not the case. Any flood would, by hydrologic sorting, produce any number of layers, and a larger flood would likely produce more layers. I believe that the Flood produced nearly ALL the layers (and fossils in the layers).For a simple experiment, put a few spoonfulls of soil in a small jar. Now "flood" the soil by filling the rest of the jar with water. Simulate great turbulence by shaking and swirling it about (use a little care unless you placed a lid on the jar ). Now let it rest. Almost immediately, through hydrologic sorting, layers will develop. At the bottom of the jar will be a kind of fine gravel, followed by sand and silt. Very fine clays will take several days to settle out. Humus will float on the top until it becomes water logged.Hope this helps.

Jar,I think you may be partially correct. I would consider the lower sections of the Mississippi delta to be sediments carried out with flood outflow. However, during the year-long flood, certain times would have experienced something similar to standing water (more like an ocean than a lake, though) but unlike an ocean, the water would have been sediment-rich and apt to deposit...well, let me quote Roxrkool cuz he said it very nicely (hope you don't mind me quoting you Roxrkool):

quote:

---

As the waters deepend, and lost energy, I would expect deposition of sediment to reflect this gradual loss of energy by forming an immense, laterally-continuous, fining-upwards sequence all over the planet

---

To be fair to Roxrkool, his problem is that there are not similar sediments found in the oceans (a problem for which I do not have an inkling for an answer).Now, I would assume that there might be stages to the Flood or events in various locales (current movements, shifting plates...I don't know) that might make for unconformities and such. But the point is that a global Flood would indeed leave sedimentary layers and lots of them. Even in flood outflow (or whatever), it would seem impossible to me for there not to be at least SOME hydrologic sorting of elements into layers. Also, another point is that not all of the sediments would result from flood outflow. Most of the sediments are thought to have formed during the rising of the Flood and during the time when there was just a planet covered with water (no rising or waning of the waters). The waning of the Flood would disrupt the sediments deposited in earlier stages in various ways, of course.I simply am not getting the "one layer" idea.

Hi Edge,I guess those questions are more related to Flood Geology. I have reposted your questions in another thread to, hopefully, tackle soon. We'll see what happens.This thread is having trouble staying focused on river delta formation and how that could affect dating and has now become a thread simply about the validity of the Flood model in general.(which deviation is understandable and is probably my fault)Anyway, your questions are re-posted in Evidence for and against Flood theories.
I haven't attempted to answer any of them yet. Some I probably just won't be qualified to even hazard guesses on. Some I might be able to tackle a little. Some I might ask other questions about.Your last question is on-topic: I would imagine that a year-long flood would have deposited much sediments world-wide. They would still be relatively soft. When the Flood waters drained into the oceans (regardless of how exactly this occurred), the Flood waters would have carried these soft sediments easily down the paths of least resistance which apparently led to where the deltas are now. The point of this answer is not to make the Flood seem plausible in an overall way, but rather to see if the Flood model has a source for the massive amounts of sediments found in major river deltas (i.e., that is what your question is asking about specifically, if I understood it properly).Thanks.{edited to correct formatting problems with the link to the Flood Geology thread}This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-14-2004 02:54 AM

Hi Edge,Well, okay. I didn't answer the "why" part of the question, did I? Just the "where" part. Well, that'll have to do for now, because I don't have a clue about the "why" at this time.

Hi Moose,Keep your eye on Evidence for and against Flood theories. I can't promise much because I have just learned I don't know as much as I thought I did about these subjects . However, there still *might* be some good discussion of such issues there soon.You, sometimes being alleged to be a geologist, would certainly have interesting input, I'm sure.