So what about SILT and dating????

Differential heavy? Heavier some places than others? Hard to fathom! he he heWater heavier than rock? To push down the rock and push up rock other places.

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.

The predictions of Walt BrownThis might be an interesting read for you.Some of it was discusses in:
Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.but the YEC posters were a bit nuts.and perhaps better:
Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-13-2004 10:02 PM

Very, very glad you brought that up. IMHO it's one of the strongest arguments for there never having been a worldwide flood.First, even though that's used as an illustration, it's not at all how a flood works. As the water rushes off it carries everything and when it gets deposited what you find are jumbled masses of stuff, everything all jumbled up.What your experiment describes is far more what you'd find in an enclosed system such as a lake, not in the outflow of a flood.It's one of those simplistic arguments that sounds fine at first glance but when examined simply doesn't hold up.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

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.

---

THen you need to explain why there are evaporite deposits and dessication cracks occurring in the middle of what you call the flood.You also need to tell us why there are the footprints of various creatures in strata supposedly deposited by a global flood.I would like to hear why there are eolian sand dunes interbedded with the flood rocks.It would also be good to tell us why there are erosional unconformities and paleosoils found in the middle of a section created by a global flood.And what about the nests of dinosaurs and other creatures such as termites? How did these get to be formed during a global flood catastrophe?And what about coral reefs? Why did they survive a flood that covered the mountains?Why are there river deltas formed during the flood? Where did the erosional sediment come from to form these deposits?(section edited out to remain roughly on topic).This message has been edited by edge, 12-13-2004 10:27 PM

Presumption: The water came from somewhere, to cover all the land of the Earth.Now, if we accept that all the land were covered, we need to have reservoirs for the drainings of the continents - Where did the water go? The only possible (albeit not feasible) mechanism would be for the lands to radically rise, relative to the ocean basins.Anyhow, it seems impossible to envision waning flood sedimentation models, if you have no place for the water to go.The year long global flood just doesn't fit into reality. That leaves "God miraculously produced, then disposed of the water". How do you do errosion/sedimentation models for miraculous water movements?Moose

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.

Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring you. I'll be busy this week - with fun stuff.:-)

Something you might want to think about is that there has been some decades for the "flooders" to think up a scenario for the flood that actually works. However, no one has come up with one. You will find as you keep making up new speculations that there are always serious problems with them.As an example, we get the galloping tectonics that some of put forward. When the energy involved is considered we end up with a molten earth and no explanation for what we actually see today. However, they ignore such little problems and keep right on making things up.What one might begin to suspect is that no one has come up with a plausible, workable scenario because there isn't one. The conclusion is what the believers in a literal Genesis of a couple of centuries ago reached: there was no global flood.

Okay, let's try to step through your scenario. I hope that you'll work with me and that we can take this step by step.I see several things to resolve:

1. the initial flood event.
2. the period of maximum coverage.
3. the lowering water levels.

Can you agree with those steps?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion