Author Topic: GM/Great Flood Critique  (Read 227 times)


  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
Re: GM/Great Flood Critique
« on: February 05, 2017, 09:42:45 am »
Mike, thanks for the comments and links. 3 days ago I posted this on the TB forum:
That is something Berthault's experiments apparently showed. When tsunamis deposit strata they separate the strata according to grain size etc. Since they are deposited simultaneously in a megasequence they form curved strata in basins. The curves of the strata nearly follow the curves of each basin surface, except that each stratum is a bit thicker at the bottom than on the sides, like this: . If strata formed in continental shallow seas, they should have formed at river deltas as sloped fans, like this and . Or if frequent tremors or tides or something caused the sediments to spread out across the floor of a shallow sea, the sediments should go to the bottom as flat layers, like this .
- So I agree that the broad horizontal lateral extent of strata support very large tsunamis as the cause of deposition. If erosion into shallow seas were true, there should only be fan shaped strata and they shouldn't be separated into individual rock types, since there would not have been pure lime regions being eroded for thousands of years followed by similar periods of clay erosion and sand erosion. I think those are among the strongest arguments against gradualism.
- Last night I posted this on the TB forum:
Igneous Origin of Salt
I just made a good find on salt. See the 20 min. video, PRIMARY IGNEOUS ORIGIN OF SALT FORMATIONS, at . It's just in time to answer most of the next bunch of claims against the Great Flood. The host of the video also authored a good paper, which I posted on my forum at .
- Mike, we're lucky to have critiques of the Great Flood posted online. Those seem likely to be the reasons the NCGT members support the conventional gradualist timeline. Of course, radiometric dating methods are probably their main reason for supporting it, but I think we have abundant evidence against it. So I look forward to getting all the main pro and con arguments listed coherently and organized into a good scientific format.


On Sat, 2/4/17, <> wrote:
Subject: RE: Critique Questions
It is typical of anti-creationists and other propagandists to throw up a flurry of arguments loaded with assertions to give their bluster an "overwhelming" appearance.  The certainty of the claims in the list you posted is unfounded.  For most, either the conditions of deposition stated are not the only possibilities, or not enough is understood about them.  For example, until recently shale and other mudstones, which comprise over 60% of the geologic column, were thought to require quiet environments to form.  The 2009 reference I sent you demonstrates that they can form in moving water as well  Schieber, J., and J. B. Southard (2009), Bedload transport of mud by floccule ripples - Direct observation of ripple migration processes and their implications, Geology, 37(6), 483-486, doi:10.1130/G25319A.1.  Salt beds in the geologic column are extremely pure compared to evaporites being formed today, as described here:  And how dolomite is formed, especially in depth, remains unsolved.  It is apparent that conditions today differ from those in place when most of the geologic column was laid down.  The huge geographic extent of many strata and the dearth of erosional interfaces suggests large scale, at least regional catastrophic deposition mechanisms.
- Don't forget the bizarre uniformitarian explanation for many deposits - rising and falling landmasses and sea levels depositing the same material over the same unchanged areas over millions of years.  There is no indication of this happening today outside of small local environments.  Note that in Shock Dynamics geology, all Cenozoic sedimentary strata formed hundreds of years after the Noahic Flood during the SD event.
- Compression built virtually all mountain chains, and rapid compression of continental crust, as in SD, would likely have had a substantial global piezoelectric electromagnetic effect.  I don't see it being associated with radiation, though.


Subject: Critique Questions
Date: Fri, February 03, 2017 10:20 pm
- I analyzed a long critique of the Great Flood and sorted it into 12 claims, along with my questions for each claim about what might be answers to them. I didn't number all of the claims, because some are closely related. I posted them here:
- If you have answers to any of them, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I'll eventually try to find answers for them myself, at least for the most important ones. I arranged the most important ones first.
- Some of the claims refer to the impossibility of high amounts of salt in sediments drying out quickly enough and of high concentrations in the ocean being deadly for all life there. I was thinking maybe there were more submarine brine lakes like the one in the Gulf of Mexico, which got washed ashore in some of the tsunamis.
- A claim about carbonates giving off too much heat is hard for me to understand. Maybe you would understand it.
- I posted more material on my forum lately, like Walter Brown's info about electrical effects, lineaments, radioactivity etc at LK2. I found a map of lineaments online that seems pretty detailed. The lines on it on the Atlantic coasts of Africa and South America look like they could have formed when the Madagascar strip connected to South America started peeling away from Africa. I think there would have been really strong electric currents under the continents as they slid apart and they could have produced the radioactivity, some of which was injected vertically under mountain ranges in granite intrusions etc. There probably was a lot of supercritical water too, like Brown thought, but not nearly as much. He claimed that it shot into the upper atmosphere and came down in Siberia as rock ice, which would have been cold enough to freeze mammoths to -150F.