FUNDAY

General Category => Updates => Topic started by: Admin on March 17, 2019, 08:48:08 pm

Title: NEW UPDATES
Post by: Admin on March 17, 2019, 08:48:08 pm
KT BOUNDARY

Where is the Flood/post-Flood Boundary? (Mesozoic host sediments are post-Flood)
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_1/j10_1_101-106.pdf

The fossil record - Becoming more random all the time
https://creation.com/the-fossil-record
The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata. In actuality, as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing. I provide a few recent examples of this, and then show that stratigraphic-range extension is not the exception but the rule. The constant extension of ranges simultaneously reduces the credibility of the geologic column and organic evolution, and makes it easier for the Genesis Flood to explain an increasingly-random fossil record.

Reliable data disconfirm a late Cenozoic post-Flood boundary
https://creation.com/reliable-data-disconfirm-late-cenozoic-post-flood-boundary
post-Flood boundary lies deeper, likely at or near the K-Pg boundary

Title: Re: UPDATES
Post by: Admin on March 23, 2019, 03:28:13 pm
IMPACTS DURING FLOOD
What do impacts accomplish in the first hour?
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j27_1/j27_1_90-98.pdf
p.92.
Larger impact craters on Earth, although almost destroyed, might however have thinned the crust and raised the Moho. The amount of crustal thinning and the height of the Moho above the average are the main factors that determine the type and size of the gravity anomaly. …  The final crater shape is usually set within about 400 to 800 seconds.21
p.93.
Planetary-scale properties can be changed. …  Moreover, the rebound is now thought to overshoot the original ground surface and reach many kilometres higher (figure 7).26 During the rebound, the rock acts like a fluid, but it is unknown how this happens, although there are a number of mechanisms attempting to explain this phenomenon.30 Based on the standard ratio of impact depth to diameter, the large and very large impacts on the moon should have blasted well down into the moon’s mantle. However, mantle rocks exposed from impacts on the moon’s surface are extremely rare.31 The conundrum of the missing mantle rocks implies that the transient crater depth was much shallower than expected. Basins on Mars between 275 and 1,000 km in diameter are also shallower with less crustal thinning than expected.32 The puzzle is especially evident in an analysis of possibly the largest impact basin in the solar system, the South PoleAitken Basin on the moon. The diameter is 2,500 km, but there are no mantle rocks. None of the mantle was tapped during such a huge impact,33 and very little basalt flowed into this crater.
p.94.
_Impacts in water. Impacts in water of course are different from those that strike land. If the impact is small compared to the depth of water, there will be little cratering on the bottom.41 For asteroids with diameters about the depth of the water or greater, the water will have little or no effect on the cratering process. The rebound of the centre of the crater immediately after impact would mostly be a pulse of water shooting high into the air.
_The most significant effect of impacts striking water is that a fair amount of water will be blasted up into the air42 and large tsunamis will result. In the excavation of an oceanic crater, a thin layer of water is ejected from the rim almost straight up, which soon collapses and plunges onto the water surface (figure 8 ). So impacts cause water to shoot high into the atmosphere at both the rim and the centre of the impact. Could this be what is described in the Bible as “on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open” (Genesis 7:11b)?  Much water is also vaporized during transport to the upper atmosphere: “Another important difference between continental and oceanic impacts is the vaporization of water expanding as a vapor cloud in the upper atmosphere. Earth’s climate and atmospheric circulation may be severely perturbed by the injection of a large amount of vapor … .”43 The above statement was made assuming one impact. However, with multiple impacts occurring simultaneously during the very early Flood, a huge amount of water vapor, and probably also liquid water, would be injected into the atmosphere and above.44 The liquid and vapor would be spread all around the earth by the upper winds and general circulation of the earth, whatever that was before the Flood, and fall as torrential worldwide rain early in the Flood. Such a rainfall would tend to slow up as the number of impacts decreased early in the Flood. But, it would still take many days before all the water fell out of the atmosphere by gravity. Such an impact mechanism can easily explain the 40 days and night[ s] of heavy rain over the earth.
_Impacts in water cause tsunamis. The size of the tsunami wave is related to the projectile diameter, but it will be different than a tsunami resulting from a large earthquake. Tsunamis would move at hundreds of m/sec away from the impact, and as they move through deep water they are large swells that may not even be detected on board a ship. It is only in shallow water that a tsunami builds up to a giant wave. Impacts cause two groups of tsunamis: one from the pushing outward of water at the rim and the other from the collapse of the central uplift, which will follow the rim wave (figure 8 ). Impact tsunamis decay much faster than earthquake-­induced waves. There are two reasons for this weaker tsunami for the same amount of energy. First, a resurge flow returning water back into the crater would diminish the strength of the tsunami waves and also help fill up the crater with debris.45 Second, since impact tsunamis are much larger, the breaking of the wave in shallow water starts on the edge of the continental shelf and not near the beach.46 Breaking so far from shore dissipates much of its energy, and the roll up on land would be much less than expected.
p.95.
non­random distribution of large impacts on the moon ... would suggest that the largest impacts hit the near side before the moon barely rotated one quarter of its axis. ... the straightforward interpretation of the observations indicates that the very large impacts struck the moon quickly before it could rotate much.48 [One 4th of 29 days = 7+ days.]
p.97.
... if over 36,000 impacts occurred during the one­year Flood and mostly at the beginning, the bombardment would be much more complicated. There would be additional geophysical and geological effects, such as some areas of Earth becoming saturated from multiple, simultaneous impacts; interference from tsunami waves and atmospheric winds from different asteroids; large areas of the earth losing variable amounts of its crust; massive volcanism; etc. The concept of so many impacts striking quickly is a major challenge to understand within a Flood model. Nevertheless I am compelled to try, and any mistakes I make can be corrected by other creationists. The idea of more than 36,000 craters greater than 30 km in diameter, all occurring within one year, is a shocking idea to many creationists. But I believe the deduction is sound, based on what we observe on other solid solar system bodies, especially on the moon. I might add that over the years a number of creationists have proposed that impacts initiated the Flood or at least triggered catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT), which caused the Flood. Carl Froede Jr has conveniently referenced those creationist papers.67 There certainly was enough energy to cause a Flood, produce the sediments, create basins, cause vertical tectonics, etc. Tens of thousands of impacts would help level high pre­Flood terrain by blasting mountains to pieces, but other mountains would form as a result of the central uplift and the uplifted rim. The debris would tend to fill up low terrain, contributing to the leveling of the earth. For a planet with so much water, such a leveling would have the net effect of flooding the entire earth. This could be the reason why the floodwater covered all the land by Day 150.

Title: Re: UPDATES
Post by: Admin on March 23, 2019, 04:09:43 pm
Large cratonic basins likely of impact origin
https://creation.com/large-cratonic-basins
… Phase change problem. The mechanism of phase change seems to be the only viable uniformitarian mechanism for basin subsidence. For instance, if basalt or gabbro subside, the lithostatic pressure increases and the rock can change to eclogite, which is 15% denser with 15% less volume. The required pressure is that of the lower crust and upper mantle. So if basalt and gabbro can subside to about 40–60 km depth, this phase transformation can potentially occur and the basin will subside more. This is a reasonable idea, except where does the initial subsidence come from? Furthermore, the phase transformation from gabbro to eclogite requires water,18 and there is rarely any significant water at the depth of the lower crust and upper mantle.
_Properties of basins. … Thick sedimentary rocks
Basins are almost always filled with sedimentary rocks, which are sometimes extremely thick. Some depths will be given in the examples of basins below, but other basins not mentioned are the East Barents Basin in the Barents Sea, north of Norway, that has about 20 km of sedimentary rocks; the West Siberian Basin with about 8 km of sedimentary rocks; the Tarim Basin of central Asia with 15 km of sedimentary rocks; and the Paranà Basin in South America with about 7 km of sedimentary rocks.21
_Little deformation during sedimentation. An examination of those rocks reveals that the sediments underwent little deformation when deposited in the basin.13,22 Figure 1 shows sedimentary rocks of the Precambrian Belt Supergroup, which are typically undeformed within the bedding planes and formations, but the whole supergroup is deformed as a single unit, suggesting that deformation occurred after the whole supergroup was deposited.
_The crust is commonly thinned in basins. It has been discovered by seismic and gravity anomaly methods that the crust below a basin is commonly thinned. Artyushkov states: “Considerable thinning of the crystalline crust occurs under most deep basins located on continents.”15 Along with a thinned crust, the Moho, the boundary between the crust and mantle, is commonly raised (see figure 2).
_Some basins uplifted and deformed. Another significant observation on basins applies to sedimentary basins in which the sedimentary rocks are uplifted and folded by compression and differential vertical tectonics.22 Practically all uplift occurs after the sediments have been deposited and turned to sedimentary rock. During uplift, the sedimentary rocks are folded and faulted with the top eroded. Such uplifted sedimentary rocks form many of the mountain ranges of the world today and would not impress anyone that they were once in a deep basin.
_In the case of an impact origin, no subsidence is needed to form the basin; an instant circular ‘hole’ in the ground is blasted out. Subsidence or uplift may occur after the basin is filled with sediments.
_... the Flood impact submodel postulates thousands of impacts occurred early in the Flood. One major effect of such a large amount of impacts is to blast a huge amount of debris up into the air in the form of ejecta. All this sediment would end up in the floodwater and would eventually be deposited. A second major effect of so many impacts is that powerful currents would develop, sometimes interfering with each other. So, the combination of powerful currents and a huge amount of sediment would be rapid sedimentation in deep basins where currents are expected to be weaker and allow sedimentation. So, early Flood impact craters are expected to rapidly fill with sediments, since the crater acts like a sediment trap (see figure 8a). Sedimentation was likely so rapid that the sediments were little deformed by subsequent movements of the crater bottom and walls.
_Large basins of North America
There are five large basins on the stable craton of North America that I will briefly discuss. These basins are the Belt, Williston, Illinois, Michigan, and Hudson Bay Basins.
_Two basins of note on other continents. … The South Caspian Basin. … The Congo Basin.
_The two largest recognized Precambrian impact features, the Vredefort and Sudbury impact structures, have been eroded anywhere from 5 to 10 km.70 In a Flood setting, with thousands of impacts in a short time, turbulent currents would be expected to create significant erosion that also would destroy shatter cones, PDFs, and other impact features.
_Discussion. ... There are hundreds of cratonic basins that could be discussed, some of which have been discussed elsewhere.74 ... Tectonics, erosion, and sedimentation during the Genesis Flood are expected to destroy much of the evidence for impact craters. But, cratonic basins would be one of the most obvious evidences of large, modified impact craters.

Title: Re: UPDATES
Post by: Admin on March 23, 2019, 07:43:56 pm
FLOOD & FOSSIL RECORD

Can Flood Geology Explain the Fossil Record?
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_1/j10_1_032-069.pdf
GEOLOGICAL COLUMN
1. Precambrian: Pre-Flood
2. Cambrian: Heavy rain ...; Erosion, deposition of ocean sediments; formation of Precam/Cam. unconformity
3. Ordovician: Rising water; coarse to fine grading of sediments
4. Silurian: High water; deposition of thick shale & limestone
5. Devonian: Tidal & wave action; cyclothems; rhythmic deposition
6. MS-PA: Water covers all land; formation of coal; lowland forest burial
7. Permian: Rain stops, wind blows; cross-bedded sandstones
8. Triassic: Mountains rise; moving continents
9. Jurassic: Waters start to recede; Mountain-building
10. Cretaceous: Major erosion of new mountains; guyots
11. Paleocene: Fossilization of reptiles; coal formation; upland forest burial
12. Eocene-Oligocene: Water continues to recede; fossilization of mammals; continental margin sediment; less dense strata
13. Miocene: Major volcanism
14. Pliocene: Localized sediments & valley fills
15. Pleistocene: Post-Flood erosion; glaciation
16. Recent:
_THE PALAEOZOIC
_... the Palaeozoic cannot represent submarine deposition and the Permo-Mesozoic the transgression of pre-Flood seas over the land because the Palaeozoic itself represents that transgression — the marine deposits of that era lie over continental deposits, not Precambrian ocean floors.
_ The Lower Cambrian quartzite above the unconformity also shows evidence of rapid deposition.60 In Scotland there are two unconformities below the Cambrian. The earlier separates the Lewisian gneiss from the overlying Stoer and Torridon Groups; the later unconformity comes between these and the Cambrian quartzite. In Arizona, similarly, there is an unconformity between the Vishnu Schist and the overlying Unkar and Chuar Groups (consisting of limestone, shale, sandstone and conglomerate) and a second between these and the Tapeats Sandstone ('The Great Unconformity').61 The two regions bear close comparison. The Torridonian Sandstone testifies, in its 'fluid evulsion structures', to sediment dumping on a massive scale, just as do similar features in the Unkar Group. These deposits above the metamorphosed rocks of the Precambrian — regularly thousands of metres thick — constitute the rocks which were eroded when the fountains of the deep broke open. The horizontal surface of trans-gression at the later unconformity marks the violent incoming of the sea some weeks later. Ager remarks that an unfossiliferous quartzite lying conformably below fossiliferous Lower Cambrian and unconformably above a great variety of Precambrian rocks — exactly the situation in Scotland — occurs 'very commonly around the world'. Indeed, 'It is not only the quartzite, but the whole deepening succession that tends to turn up almost everywhere, i.e. a basal conglomerate, followed by the orthoquartzite, followed by glauconitic sandstones, followed by marine shales and thin limestones. '62 The lateral persistence of this succession is striking enough. What is yet more striking is that it represents an overall grading of particle sizes, from very coarse at the bottom to very fine at the top. This is the sort of 'upward-fining' pattern which one often finds in a series of beds, such as a cyclothem. In other words, the whole succession has the unity characteristic of a single episode of erosion and deposition, during which material is eroded by fast-moving currents, held in suspension, and then water-sorted as current velocity wanes — as a result, for example, of the water becoming deeper. Commonly a coarse lithology prevails at the bottom of the Cambrian succession (conglomerates and sandstones), a fine lithology at the top (limestone and dolomite), while shales, silts and mudstones occur in-between.63  Widespread carbonate deposition continues until the end of the Lower Ordovician, after which a surface of erosion marks an unconformity over much of North America.64 Marking the end of one continuous sequence, this would seem to represent, so far as North America is concerned, the virtual completion of transgression over the continent, followed by a steep increase in bioturbation as current strength and sedimentation rates decreased.65 
_Except over the Transcontinental Arch, Cambrian rocks are found throughout the North American interior. Those regions where they are absent were either source areas for deposition elsewhere or eroded subsequently; there is no evidence of any pristine topography. By the Upper Ordovician the process was complete: the sea had spread eastwards and westwards across most, probably all,74 of the continent — after the entire Precambrian land surface had been broken up, inundated and redeposited. If we adopt Austin's own estimate of the speed of transgression, upwards of two metres per second, 500 miles would have been covered in 4-5 days. If we halve this rate in order to take account of higher elevations inland, the whole continent could have been transgressed within four weeks. Cambrian rocks, often with an unconformity at their base, are of worldwide occurrence, making it possible that by the Upper Ordovician every part of the earth was deluged. 
_ ...  there is no trace of a vegetated terrestrial surface at that time anywhere. The spores and woody plant material recovered from Cambrian strata76"79 occur in sedimentary deposits and are not therefore in their original locations. ...  it seems clear that the Upper Precambrian to Lower Ordovician transgression must be placed within the first 150 days of the Genesis record. Accordingly, all Cambrian deposits must be Flood deposits, and wherever they are found, the land must be already under water. At that point the possibility of pristine land surfaces comes to an end, until a new surface emerges out of the Flood. ... In reality, although extensive regions may once have been underwater shelves, in general the continents of today are undoubtedly fragments of the supercontinent before the Flood. It follows, therefore, that the Lower Palaeozoic marine animals fossilised in, say, Iowa, hundreds of miles inland from the pre-Flood shore, must have been transported enormous distances (Figure 5). Because the whole Earth was under water well before the end of the Lower Palaeozoic, it is impossible to explain assemblages after the Lower Palaeozoic — including terrestrial assemblages — as originating from nearby provinces which had not yet been inundated.
_Did Animals Escape to Higher Ground? ... The Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian deposits exposed on the Earth today are marine and igneous deposits overlying a Precambrian basement, and that basement is the scoured remains of the primeval supercontinent. Strata at the pre-Flood boundary do not represent the surfaces of pre-Flood sea bottoms, while none of today's ocean floors are older than Mesozoic. The Atlantic Ocean, for instance, originated in the Jurassic, when 'Pangaea' rifted apart and new seafloor spread out from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.94 ... Terrestrial animals are totally absent from strata of the Lower Palaeozoic because they were obliterated: 'In seven days I will send rain upon the earth . . . and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.' (Genesis 7:4)
_Again, it is important to keep in mind the violence of events during the first six weeks of the Flood. In still waters the corpses of most terrestrial animals will float on the surface, and a few will sink to the bottom. In turbulent waters bodies which are heavier than water take longer to sink, and in the meantime are subject to processes which rapidly reduce them to nothing: physical dismemberment through continual buffeting, consumption by scavengers and predators (sharks, marine reptiles, carnivorous fish), abrasion and pulverisation in churning sediments, chemical and bacterial decomposition. In the conditions of the first 40 days — beginning with the stripping of the original land surface to depths of thousands of metres — it is difficult to imagine that any remains of land animals could have survived in recognizable form. With its widespread volcanism and metamorphism, the Upper Precambrian record suggests that land animals were annihilated almost instantly, by processes other than drowning and decay.
_ The advantage of the fishes, which also would have been borne along by the currents, was that they could swim away once the currents slackened and their sediment loads began to settle. It is this circumstance which explains why they scarcely ever appear in Cambrian strata. Fish that were already dead when the currents slackened would tend to have been buried higher up than the invertebrates because of their greater buoyancy. The mass burials of fish which, in the Palaeozoic, occur in Devonian strata were mostly the result of shoals being overwhelmed by epicontinental landslides while they were still alive. Since the conditions most favourable for such burials were shallow waters near emerging land, they are evidence that by the early Devonian the Flood was already waning.98
_...  temporary surfaces were being colonised during the Flood itself, sometimes by creatures that had come into existence during the Flood. It is unlikely to be the case that a broken brachiopod in some Silurian deposit was spawned on a preFlood seafloor and then transported hundreds of miles to its burial place; it might have been spawned on an Ordovician surface which was several months later eroded away, by the same powerful currents that broke its shell.
_There were in fact earlier orogenies, notably the stupendous Caledonian and Variscan orogenies of the Palaeozoic, and these were followed by a period of relative stability during the Triassic, Jurassic and much of the Cretaceous. In the Mesozoic there is no juncture where the whole Earth could be said to have been thenceforth under water. That juncture is to be found only in the Ordovician, whereas as we shall consider presently, dry-land structures occur all through the Mesozoic: subaerially deposited basalts, aeolian red beds, root beds, bird and animal tracks, dinosaur nests and so on. Nor is there a juncture still higher in the Mesozoic where it is possible to claim that the first surfaces began to emerge from the water. That juncture is to be found much earlier at the end of the Silurian.
_The Coal Measures Coal does not occur in the geological column until the Upper Devonian. On northern continents it is most abundant in the Upper Carboniferous, on southern continents (the original Gondwana) it abounds in the Permian, and in both cases the deposits are nearly all located on the then continental margins. A second concentration of coal deposits begins in the Cretaceous and climaxes in the Tertiary (see Figure 3). Since this pattern of distribution is worldwide and can hardly be fortuitous, it requires an explanation.
_The answer, so far as the Permo-Carboniferous is concerned, must be that the measures represent forests of aquatic vegetation — thick platforms of interlocking roots and entangled debris, covering thousands of squares of miles —which were grounded as the waters continued to drain off the land after the Flood year. Successive currents washed the vegetation (including flotsam) into deepening offshore basins, while prograding sediments from the land spread out under the water and thereby anchored the forests.120 ... Soon after a raft of vegetation became anchored in shallow-water sediments, the progressive sinking of the sediments pulled the vegetation below water level in advance of the next prograding cycle. Such processes clearly require time. Within the 800 m thick succession of Pennsylvanian deposits in the Eastern Interior Basin of Illinois and Indiana no less than 51 separate delta advances have been distinguished.121 Together with other evidences of time in the Upper Carboniferous, the cyclothems cannot be satisfactorily explained as the deposits of a few months.
_It is noteworthy that in many places Devonian strata constitute the uppermost rocks of the Appalachian Plateau.125 Elsewhere the record ends with the Lower or Upper Carboniferous, for example in Virginia, Indiana and Tennessee. Far from showing increasing inundation, the Devonian was the time when the Appalachian Mountains began to be uplifted — a process which continued into the Triassic. Drainage off the emergent slopes resulted in the formation of coarse-grained meander-belts below, above and at the same level as the coalfields immediately west of the Appalachians, until the conditions for sedimentary deposition in the area ceased.126 Similar drainage channels have been reported from the British coalfields.127
Title: Re: UPDATES
Post by: Admin on September 15, 2019, 08:53:40 am
1. Goals
2. Letters
3. Falls of Blood from Venus
4. On the Orientation of Ancient Temples and Other Anomalies
5. When Was the Lunar Surface Last Molten?
6. Venus Before Exodus
7. Comets and the Bronze Age Collapse

1. Goals: 1. Popularize optimum scientific method & scholarship (See TB Forum).
a. Improve Mike Fischer's model.
b. Add 2 articles (Ancient Maps & Scientific Evidence) that support a date of just over 4k years ago for the Great Flood & Meteor Bombardment (See TB Forum) to correct Mike Fischer's date.
c. Add JB's article on Noah's Flood to prove that the Flood caused the geological column (seen in 24 or more basins) of 6 megasequences caused by an orbiting body, like the Moon, on a briefly elliptical orbit.
d. Add Creation article evidence that basins were formed by impacts before the Flood.
e. Add that the breakup of the Saturn system produced the meteors and dust that produced impacts and destroyed much of the biosphere (See Saturn Theory).
f. Add that the Moon and Mars were impacted at about the same time as Earth (Saturn Theory).
g. Add that the impacts caused electrical effects, including radioactivity, on Earth (See WB, TB and CC's Astrophysics).
-----

Scientific Evidence for A Major World Catastrophe About 11,500 Years Ago: A Preliminary Selection [SIS C&C Review]

PARTIALLY SIMPLIFIED VERSION

1.vein: lead (+fossil) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Derbyshire, UK
2.cave: iron-oxide (+fossil) --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Gailenreuth, Germany
3.breccia: iron-ore (+fossil) ---  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Kesslerloch, Switzerland
4.rock-fissures: iron-ore (+fossil) (up to 720 ft deep) -- --- --- --- --- --- --- Carniola, Austria
5.caves: ore cement (+fossil) ---  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Wellington Valley, Australia
6.cave breccia: iron stain (+fossil) --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Tea Tree Cave, Queensland, Australia
7.drift sand & gravel: metal (+fossil) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Turnham Green +Acton, Middlesex, UK (1800s)
8.iron-sand: iron patina/stain (+fossil) --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Vilyui, Siberia, Russia
9.glacial deposits: iron-oxide stain (+artifact) --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Nampa, Idaho, (late 1800s)
10.drift stones and sand grains: iron oxide stain ---  --- --- --- --- --- --- --- South Yorkshire +Wiltshire +Humberside, UK (=<15 ft thick)
11.drift gravels: manganous stain --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Radley, UK +other places around Abingdon, UK (formation of 'brief duration')
12.drift deposits: iron-oxide stain +gold +platinum +diamonds ---- --- --- --- --- France +Germany +Poland +western Russia +other European +near-eastern countries
13.drift: iron-oxide stain +manganese +copper +asphalt +oil --- -- --- --- --- --- Israel +Jordan
14.drift: gold flakes +platinum +lead +zinc +iron ore ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- Indiana +Michigan +Minnesota +Virginia +the Carolinas (sometimes at great depths occupying the uneven surfaces of the underlying bedrock)
15.drift: nickel +nearly pure copper pieces +metals --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- Sudbury, Ontario
16.irony-clay deposits: copper pieces (one 3,000 lb) +good quality diamonds -- --- Ontario to Ohio
17.drift: diamonds (in silicate rocks associated with volcanism) --- - --- --- --- southern margins of Hudson Bay (where no recent volcanic activity has occurred)
18.loess: manganese nodules (Pisolites) --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Northern China
19.loess: metal nodules --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- other regions, China
20.loess: silica +heavy minerals +up to 20.26% aluminium +up to 7.80% iron --- --- Nebraska
21.drift gravel: manganese +cobalt +iron +lead +zinc +copper --- - --- --- --- --- mouth of Fraser River, British Columbia
22.fossil beds: immense banks +lenses of frozen volcanic dust +ejecta: fossil ---- Siberia +Alaska fossil beds
23.sea bed clays +muds: much oxidised ferric iron particles --- -- --- --- --- --- the Arctic
24.sea bed clays +muds: much manganese oxide - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- White Sea +Barents Sea, Siberian coast
25.floor sediments: volcanic ash +much nickel +radium (both rare in sea water) --- Pacific Ocean
26.patchy young radioactive clays in much of the ocean floor:
much radioactive ferromanganese nodules +cobalt +nickel +copper +other heavy ores --- oceans
_Oceanographers concluded that the nickel and iron in sea floor deposits were of meteoric origin

----------

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
by Lloyd » Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:45 pm
The Major Cataclysms Occurred Less Than 5,000 Years Ago

An article by C. Ginenthal about Ancient Maps shows that Antarctica was apparently largely ice-free 6,000 years ago, based on drill cores at the Ross ice shelf and probably other measurements. If it's true that it was ice-free at that time, I think this means the Shock Dynamics impact and rapid continental drift occurred shortly before that, like within years, because the Arctic lands and Antarctica moved toward the frigid poles due to the impact, and the ice sheets built up soon after. An ancient map also shows Greenland without its ice sheet.

The article is at: http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=%22Common+Sense+About+Ancient+Maps+Charles+Ginenthal+In+1984&zoom_per_page=25&zoom_and=1&zoom_cat%5B%5D=-1

_Here's the quoted portion:
"Not only do these cartographers say the map is accurate, but they point out that, during the 1957 to 1958 Geophysical Year, other teams of seismic scientists, like that of Paul Emile Victor, went into Antarctica and made soundings of the topography under the ice, and that these soundings confirmed the accuracy of the Oronteus Fineus map. Therefore, we have the Piri Re'is map of Antarctica confirmed as accurate by the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office and the Norwegian-British-Swedish Expedition of 1949, and the Oronteus Fineus map of Antarctica confirmed as accurate by Strategic Air Command's map office and the International Geophysical Year teams of 1957 to 1958. These findings are further corroborated by other evidence. According to Hapgood: During the Byrd Expedition of 1947-1948, Dr. Jack Hough, then of the University of Illinois, took three cores from the bottom of the ocean off the Ross Sea, and these were dated by the ionium method of radioactive dating, of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, by Dr. W. D. Urry, ... one of those to develop this method. The cores showed alternations of types of sediments.... There was a coarse glacial sediment, as was to be expected, and fine sediments of semiglacial type, but there were also layers of finer sediments typical of temperate climates. [These were the sort ...] carried down by rivers from ice-free continents. Here was the first surprise, then. Temperate conditions had evidently prevailed in Antarctica in the not distant past. The sediment[s indicated that, no fewer than three times during the Pleistocene Epoch, a temperate climate had prevailed in the Ross Sea. Then, when this material was dated by Urry, it was revealed that the most recent temperate period had been very recent indeed. In fact, it ended only about 6,000 years ago. Hough wrote: "The log of core N-5 shows glacial marine sediment from the present to 6,000 years ago. From 6,000 to 15,000 years ago, the sediment is fine-grained, with the exception of one granule at about 12,000 years ago. This suggests an absence of ice from the area during that period, except for a stray iceberg 12,000 years ago." (19) This evidence is further corroborated by Reginald Daly, who informs us that "[carbon-14] dating has shown that Antarctica's ice is less than 6,000 years old. (Emphasis added.) [Arthur Holmes writes: `Algal remains dated at 6,000 BP [Before Present] have been found on the latest terminal moraines.'" (20) Thus, in addition to the accuracy of the Piri Re'is map and the Oronteus Fineus map of Antarctica, we have measurements from cores in the Ross Sea and from the last glacial deposits containing a temperate species of algae that also show that Antarctica was not covered by ice 6,000 years ago. The evidence indicates that the Piri Re'is and Oronteus Fineus maps of Antarctica, published in the 16th century, are accurate and authentic representations of the continent as has been confirmed by scientists in the fields of seismic soundings and cartography. This shows that Antarctica was largely ice-free 6,000 years ago and is corroborated by evidence of cores from the Ross Sea and by the dating of algae in terminal moraines. The only way that such accurate maps could have been made prior to the 16th century is if Antarctica was not buried under thousands of feet of ice, when its climate had to be tremendously different."
_End of quote.
(Note: I assume that the object found at "12,000" years ago was not from an iceberg and the sediment dated older than 6,000BP was not older than that. See below.)

Mike Fischer of http://NewGeology.us proposed that the Shock Dynamics impact event (in which an asteroid from 33 to 78 miles in diameter struck the former supercontinent, Pangaea, north of Madagascar, and caused the continents to split off rapidly to their present locations) occurred shortly before the time of the Younger Dryas impact maybe 11,000 years ago, though he said privately that it could have occurred as recently as 4200 years ago. So if Antarctica was ice-free less than 6,000 years ago, the Shock Dynamics event must have occurred shortly before that. And the Younger Dryas impact must have occurred about the same time, i.e. less than 6,000 years ago.

I've since read Melvyn Cook's article, Earth Tectonics Viewed from Rock Mechanics at:
http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=%22Tectonics+Viewed+from+Rock+Mechanics+By+Melvin+A.+Cook&zoom_per_page=25&zoom_and=1&zoom_cat%5B%5D=-1
_Here's the relevant part.
"Dating the Rupture of Pangaea, Continental Drift, and the EGRR [Earth-girdling rift and ridges]
Farrand and Gajda determined, by the equilibrium radiocarbon method [10] that the beginning of the 'uplifts' in Canada occurred 7,500 to 10,500 years ago (8700 +/- 765 years before present: this date is the average value read from the 'isobases' surrounding Hudson Bay, the maxima for these uplifts). To obtain this result they used the equilibrium radiocarbon values of Libby [33] who at first found a value of 0.78 for C14/C.o14 [C14 is the biospheric radiocarbon concentration and C.o14 is the expected value based on the known intensity of galactic cosmic rays. Libby interpreted the difference simply as lost radiocarbon. In 1963, Lingenfelter [34] of the Libby school reduced this value to 0.73 and in 1964 he and Flamm [35] found a still lower value of 0.675. If Farrand and Gajda had used the 1964 result, the maximum equilibrium radiocarbon date for the uplifts in northeastern Canada would have been 7550 +/- 655 years BP. However, this date would have been only 4740 years BP if they had used the 1964 result and interpreted it, not by the equilibrium radiocarbon method, but by the non-equilibrium radiocarbon dating model [36], dictated by the actual observations of 1964 without assuming C14 loss from the atmosphere and oceans. Heiskanen and Vening-Meinesz studied the uplifts in Fennoscandia [11] by the observed gravity anomaly, which they found obeys the same exponential decay law as radioactivity. They found for the uplifts in the Bay of Bothnia ... [that] The beginning of the uplifts was ... about 4300 years before the date of their investigation, or about 4345 BP."
_End of quote.
Note: the uplifts began when the ice caps were removed.

The reason I said above that the sediments below the less than 6,000 year old sediments were not older than that is because the sediments must have mostly all been deposited at about the same time, as I explained in this thread 2 years ago at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025&start=720#p119437 in a post I titled: Sedimentary Rock Strata Prove Catastrophism.

There I said: "Re: Sedimentary Rock Strata: What brief explanation is there for the fact that sedimentary rock strata covering large continental areas are generally sorted into different rock types, i.e. esp. sandstones, claystones, and limestones? I.e., assuming that millions to billions of years of erosion and deposition occurred, how was it possible for only one rock type to be deposited over large areas for thousands of years, followed by thousands of years of another rock type, etc? The only plausible means I know of for separation of strata into such individual rock types is by major flooding over short time spans, as demonstrated by Guy Berthault. The geologic column is said to consist of 6 megasequences worldwide, each containing many conforming sedimentary strata, and each megasequence occurring over an unconformity. The best explanation seems to be that each megasequence was deposited during major flooding over a short time span of days or weeks. Since the unconformities between the megasequences seem to show mainly only sheet eroision, there must have been only short time spans of days, weeks or months between each megasequence deposit."

Early in this thread I showed evidence that major cataclysms occurred about 4240 years ago, including a Great Flood. The Shock Dynamics event seems to have been the cause of the flood and of rapid continental drift and of mountain building and most fossil formation and extinctions and it now appears that the best evidence is that it occurred less than 5,000 years ago and the Younger Dryas event occurred after that. Only one large asteroid caused the Shock Dynamics Pangaea splitting event etc, but that asteroid was accompanied by numerous other objects, many of which also struck the Earth and the Moon at that time, maybe over a period of centuries. And the Ancient Maps article by Ginenthal above suggests that civilization was highly advanced before the event and for some time after.

Comments?
 
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
by moses » Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:55 pm
I am pretty sure now that all those 10,000 BC, or so, datings are in error and should be around 4,000 BC. This is because of Noah's flood event which introduced a large amount of carbon to Earth and changed from a 360 day year to the 365.24 year commemorated in the Great Pyramid.

Thus Gobekli Tepe would then be just before the Sumerian civilisation and things make a lot more sense.
 
Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
by Lloyd » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:58 pm
Thanks, Mo. Yes, Gobekli Tepi makes more sense at just over 4,000 years ago because of familiar astrological symbols used there, I think, which may refer to a date. As for the Flood event adding C14 to the Earth, can you provide any authoritative references for that? Maybe I'll have time to look for info on that before long myself.

By the way, I think the mythological evidence etc for the Saturn Theory is also something that needs to be incorporated into the ancient global cataclysm model. Maybe it will help us identify the source of the meteor stream/s etc that caused the cataclysms. Maybe the unusual minerals mentioned in one article came from the meteor stream or one of the planets of the polar configuration. I'll check out the relevant article I just read lately real quick.

Maybe this article: "Scientific Evidence for A Major World Catastrophe About 11,500 Years Ago: A Preliminary Selection D S Allan" at:
http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=%22Scientific+Evidence+for+A+Major+World+Catastrophe+About+11%2C500+Years+Ago%3A+A+Preliminary+Selection+D+S+Allan&zoom_per_page=25&zoom_and=1&zoom_cat%5B%5D=-1

And this article: "The Flood" at:
http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=%22Flood+Charles+Ginenthal+One&zoom_per_page=25&zoom_and=1&zoom_cat%5B%5D=-1

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm
by Lloyd » Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:20 pm
The first article I listed in the previous post is the one with the info about minerals. Following is a quote.

"The Metal Factor
Especially noteworthy are the numerous instances of 'drift'-age animals and plants found agglutinated by, embedded within, or unexpectedly associated with, certain ores. Examples include a nearly complete rhinoceros skeleton entombed in a vein of lead in Derbyshire [35], thousands of agglutinated bones in a cave at Gailenreuth, Germany [36], many more cemented together in red iron-oxide stained breccia at Kesslerloch, Switzerland [37], those within nearly pure iron-ore infilling rock-fissures descending to 720 ft [220m below ground level in Carniola, Austria [38] and ore-agglutinated masses of bones occupying cave after cave in Australia's Wellington Valley [39]. Many cave breccias are strongly ferruginised. That of Tea Tree Cave in Queensland is an outstanding example [40]. Animals remains from 'drift'-age sands and gravel also often exhibit external metalliferous staining. Typical examples were the mammoth and other mammal bones found at Turnham Green and Acton, Middlesex, last century 'loaded with manganous oxide' [41]. Molluscs possessing a pronounced ferruginous patina occurred in blue-grey iron-sand overlying the celebrated frozen rhinoceros carcass of Vilyui in Siberia [42]. Even a small soapstone idol exhumed from 'glacial' deposits over 280 feet (86m.) below ground level at Nampa, Idaho, late last century was found invested with reddish iron oxide [43]. At many localities the stones and sand grains constituting much of the 'drift' itself have been similarly ferruginised."

Numerous examples of metal or mineral staining or contents in the "drift" is mentioned in addition to the above. The paragraph after that says "loess" also contains such things and appears to have originated at the same time as the drift etc. Drift is defined as: "In geology, drift is the name for all material of glacial origin found anywhere on land or at sea, including sediment and large rocks (glacial erratic). Glacial origin refers to erosion, transportation and deposition by glaciers." Loess is defined as: "Loess, an unstratified, geologically recent deposit of silty or loamy material that is usually buff or yellowish brown in colour and is chiefly deposited by the wind. Loess is a sedimentary deposit composed largely of silt-size grains that are loosely cemented by calcium carbonate."

Charles Ginenthal had another article about so-called glacial deposits actually being flood deposits, often over a fractured ice sheet, if I understood him correctly.

So I hope to come to understand better how the staining etc came about in the drift and loess etc.