Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Mike Messages / Megatsunamis
« Last post by Admin on February 14, 2017, 08:29:40 pm »
Okay, Mike, I have some more questions now. Oops. I got your next email, so I'll add discussion of that at the end of this.

_M: Megatsunamis would require a much larger body [than the Moon], and an erratic orbit to induce flow in orthogonal directions.
=L: What info do you have on the direction of flow of waters that deposited megasequences? All I've read from Baumgardner or another creationist is that the floods swept from the NE to the SW. A catastrophist, Cardona, has said that the flood came from the north. I think he was quoting early Native American sources. The Saturn Theory, based on ancient myths etc, is similar to Velikovsky's theory and provides several planets, especially Venus and Mars, as possible causes of tsunamis, so there could have been planets temporarily orbiting Earth on different orbital planes (See more at the end).

_M: The Moon would have to be much closer (but beyond the Roche limit) and would only cause water flow along its orbital path.
=L: Since moons exist within Roche limits and since Mathis reasoned that Roche limits don't exist, do you think he is likely right?

_M: Paleontologists can distinguish freshwater and saltwater denizens, which still exist today.
=L: Aren't the dinosaurs considered to be freshwater animals? And yet they appear to have drowned in saltwater. Have they not?

_M: Clearly the most sweeping megatsunamis would have come from the rising ocean waters as the rain fell since they covered 60% or more of Earth's surface.
_On the other hand, water rising on the protocontinent would have flowed outward.
=L: How would rain cause tsunamis? Baumgardner calculated that the sedimentary strata, which average 1.8 km thick, would have needed tsunamis 2.5 km high to transport all the sand and mud etc onto the supercontinent. Why would that not be correct?

_M: The sediment layer on the seafloor averages only .5 km thick.
=L: Do you have figures on how much of that is solid rock? And do you know which megasequence/s the rock belongs to? The Atlantic shouldn't have any flood-formed strata, should it?

_M: There are lots of examples of spreading and stretching of continental crust involved in separation, which is another reason that brittle Plate Tectonics is faulty.
=L: Do you mean the supercontinent was not hardened granite and hardened sedimentary rock when it broke up?

_M: I think the K-Pg iridium layer and probably the glass spherules are associated with Chicxulub.
... It was laid down long before the SD event, which I think produced the Australasian tektite strewnfield.
=L: Do you have detailed info on that? Isn't the iridium in a layer of clay? And isn't there also charcoal as from a conflagration? And isn't the iridium/clay layer above the layer of spherules? Can you explain that in detail?

_M: What evidence is there that the Moon ever split [to form the supercontinent]?
=L: All I know is that the Moon is said to have similar composition to Earth's continents, I think, although the mares are said to be basalt. I have a few references on that. What I read today about the Roche limit makes me more confident that close passes of planets, moons, or asteroids would be possible.
_Mathis says all matter gives off photons that have mass, so when bodies are close enough together they cause tides. He says the force is like pressing down on a beachball in a bathtub. It makes the surrounding waters rise. As the body moves overhead it's photon force is like a beachball moving on the ocean, causing tidal waves around it. So a large enough beachball would make tidal waves large enough to roll over a low-level supercontinent, carrying along sediments. What do you think of that?

_M: I haven't heard about fields of mass-containing photons before; aren't photons usually considered to be massless? Where can I find the myths involving Jupiter, Saturn, and the rocky planets interacting before the Great Flood?
=L: Although conventional science considers photons massless and dimensionless, it makes no sense. The photon would be like a ghost. How could such a thing have any effect on matter?
_Regarding Saturn Theory myths, one source is http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=
which does searches of numerous sources, but only like ten lines at a time. Others are http://maverickscience.com and http://saturniancosmology.org/files/thoth
_The evidence from myths etc suggests that Venus, Mars and Earth were previously satellites of Saturn, moving in single file behind Saturn from distant parts of the solar system to the present orbits. In Kronos magazine in the 1980s probably, Cardona speculated that Jupiter was once close to Earth and its moon Io was the source of the fire and brimstone that fell on Sodom and Gemorrah. He may have abandoned that theory later, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the most ancient myths called Saturn the Sun. Later the name was transferred to the present Sun. This video discusses the theory well: youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY
92
Mike Messages / Moho, Roche Limit, Tides, Myths
« Last post by Admin on February 14, 2017, 10:56:51 am »
Moho, Roche Limit, Tides, Myths
Hi Mike.
I have a lot of reading to do to reply to your last email. I'll ask later what you know about strata deposition directions etc, but for now I'll just reply regarding the Moho, the Roche limit and a little about tides. Charles thinks tides are electrostatic. So does Miles Mathis in a sense. Mathis says the Roche limit is a myth, quoting below. Maybe that means an asteroid could make a relatively soft landing on Earth to form the supercontinent. Several moons are known to be within the supposed Roche limit.

You said: "Why would the Moho be plasma?" Because the Moho is at the depth below which electron degeneracy pressure squeezes the electrons out of atoms, so the electrons are pushed up above the bottom of the Moho. And the crustal tides cause the crust to move up and down 1 meter each day, so the Moho is 1 meter thick at high tide and close to zero at low tide. So the Moho is continuously getting ohmic heating. See for details Charles' paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9925

Charles said privately yesterday: "The formula for calculating tidal forces was heuristically deriven, since Newtonian mechanics doesn't predict tides as strong as they actually are. And heuristic formulas don't scale well — there's no guarantee that the results will be correct. If I'm right, that tides are electrostatic, the existing heuristic formula for tides won't predict the forces at different distances at all."

=====
My main interest here is trying to determine if an asteroid or planet temporarily orbiting Earth elliptically would produce tsunamis at perigee over one or two kilometers high and, if so, how close and large the object would need to be.

Below are a bunch of excerpts from Mathis on Tides and the Roche Limit. Can anyone help me find a way to calculate from this the perigee and size of an object to raise such tides?

OCEAN TIDES
http://milesmathis.com/tide2.html
E/M FIELD
The most astonishing thing I have discovered in my Unified Field is that small objects have stronger E/M fields than larger ones. Given two spherical objects of equal density and make-up, the smaller of the two will have a stronger E/M field, not just relatively, but absolutely. The Moon has a field that is 110 times stronger than the Earth's field. ... This is due to the ratio of the surface area to the volume, of course. A smaller sphere will have the same ratio of mass to volume as a larger sphere, by the definition of density. But it will have a larger ratio of density to surface area, which proves my point.
[But doesn't the Sun have a much stronger E/M field than any planet?]

TIDAL E/M PUSH
... The gravitational force pulls us down, as an effect, and the E/M field pushes us up, as an effect, so the result is mostly down, to the tune of 9.8. But now I am saying that instead of subtracting, we add. The Moon causes the vector situation to switch. So now, directly under the Moon, we have about 9.82 m/s2 as our resultant acceleration. And this makes the tidal acceleration
.009545 x 2 = .0191 m/s2
And that is 572 times the maximum tidal force from gravity. So, yes, you would weigh about .2% more directly under the Moon.

ORBITAL DISTANCE
... the orbital distance of the Moon is not a coincidence. ... the orbital distance, which we are calling R here, is a direct outcome of the two fields, E/M and acceleration (gravity). These two fields cause the orbital distance. The acceleration creates an apparent attraction, and the E/M field keeps the Moon from being caught. The Moon's "innate" velocity is also involved, of course, but the two fields determine this as well, after any amount of time.3 So R is completely determined by the size of the bodies and their densities. The Moon must orbit at (or near) that radius where its field intercepts 1/3 of the Earth's sphere. ... In the center of the circle the force is radial. In other words, it comes straight down upon the ocean. ... You can see that the initial force will change from radial to tangential as we go out from the center of our circle.

OCEAN WATER PILE
... Now, if we look just beyond the tangent — which is to say just beyond our circle of initial influence — we find water that has not been touched by any force at all. It is completely unaccelerated. As our accelerated water meets this unaccelerated water, it will pile up behind it, causing a swell. This is one of our high tides. In the initial stages of our analysis, it must be a complete circle of high tides, with a diameter on the curved surface of the Earth equal to 1/3 the circumference of the Earth. It will travel at some velocity around to the far side of the Earth, until blocked by a land mass or resisted by a reverse tide.

RADIAL FORCE
But let us return to our central force. ... It hits the Earth like a radial meteor, except that this meteor has a radius of 378,000km. It is like a meteor with a very low density. The main difference between our force from the Moon and a real meteor is that our force keeps arriving continuously. ... although the force is radial, the motion created is tangential. The water does not want to move down, and at greater depths it does not want to move sideways, either. So the result is motion sideways nearer the surface. Another circular wave is created, traveling out from the center. Initially this central wave is 60o behind the outer wave, and unless we show that it is moving faster than the outer wave, it will stay 60o behind it.

MAGNETIC FORCE
... By the right hand rule, if the electrical force is radial down, then the magnetic force will be clockwise, looking down on the ocean. Toward the center of our circle, this should have a magnifying effect on the electrical force, giving it the effect of a screw instead of a nail. ... The screws therefore cause a spreading, which magnifies the lateral forces already in play with the electrical field. The magnetic field and the electrical field work in tandem to produce the central wave.

SOLAR WIND EFFECTS
http://milesmathis.com/tide3.html
... What really causes the spring and neap tide variation is the Solar Wind.

ARCHIMEDES EFFECT
http://milesmathis.com/tide5.html
... If the Moon is directly above you, you are at the center of the depression. You are lower than the mean sea level (sea levels without a Moon), but the rest of the world is at high tide (or would be, minus time lags). This is because the mechanism of tide creation is relatively simple: when the Moon is over water, it creates a lower sea below it, and this forces all the other water higher. Just take a beach ball into the bathtub, press it down ... The tangential velocity of the Moon is already said to balance the gravitational forces between the two bodies, so there is no leftover force to create tides. ...  Not only is the Moon not oblate to any degree, with apsides pointing anywhere, if anything the Moon shows a negative tidal bulge on the front.

... the force arriving from the Moon is neither negative nor positive. It is photonic, not ionic, in the first instance. However, once it arrives, it must act by driving free ions. That is how the charge field becomes active in the E/M field. The photons drive ions.

BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
http://milesmathis.com/tide4.html
... What we now call the gravitational field is actually a differential field made up of both the gravitational pseudo field and the E/M field. All fluctuations belong to the E/M component; none to the gravitational component. This makes it so much easier to explain the menstrual cycle, as well as to test the theory. We already know that the brain and nervous system work in large part on electrical impulses. The body, like the oceans, is mostly saltwater: therefore it is a lovely conductor. These and many other facts, too obvious to dwell on, lead directly to confirmation of my theory. We also know that manmade electrical fields can upset animal and plant cycles, including the human menstrual cycle.

---

ELECTROSTATIC TIDES
Charles Chandler thinks tides are electrostatic (See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9925 regarding crustal tides). So does Miles Mathis in a sense. Charles said privately yesterday: "The formula for calculating tidal forces was heuristically deriven, since Newtonian mechanics doesn't predict tides as strong as they actually are. And heuristic formulas don't scale well — there's no guarantee that the results will be correct. If I'm right, that tides are electrostatic, the existing heuristic formula for tides won't predict the forces at different distances at all."

=====

See also: http://milesmathis.com/tide4.html

A RECALCULATION OF THE ROCHE LIMIT
http://milesmathis.com/roche.html
["E/M field" means the field of mass-containing photons received and emitted by all matter.]
Now let us calculate the first new Roche limit, where the E/M field balances the gravity field. Using the equations from my UFT paper, we just set the two fields to equal one another:

m(A + a) = [GMm/R2 ] – [m(A + a)]
2(A + a) = GM/R2
R = √{GM/[2A + 2a]}

For the Earth and Moon, that distance would be about 4,006 km. To find that number, I used my new accelerations for Earth and Moon. In those equations, the accelerations are for the solo gravity field, not the unified field, so standard-model numbers are not what we want. Current numbers are calculated from Newton's unified field equation, and are field differentials. In other words, I used the number 2.67 for the Moon, not 1.62.

What I just found is a Roche limit assuming the Moon has no tangential velocity.

...
So let us calculate a new Roche limit assuming the Moon keeps its current orbital velocity. We will assume, like Newton, that the Moon has an “innate” tangential velocity, uncaused by the field itself. I have shown that this is not the case, but we can choose any velocity we like to develop an equation, and the current one is as good as any.

[m(A + a)] – mv2 /2R = [GMm/R2 ] – [m(A + a)]
4R2 (A + a) – v2R – 2GM = 0
R = v2 + √[v4 + 32GM(A + a)]
               8(A + a)
For the Moon, that would be
R = 4,023km

... But let us move on to look at the second sort of Roche limit, the one that mirrors more closely the current one. We want to find a distance at which the E/M field would break up an orbiter. As should already be clear from our analysis of Pan above, this limit is a phantom. If Pan is still experiencing accretion when it is so near the surface of a huge planet, then we may assume that the tidal Roche limit is a complete myth. The E/M Roche limit would also be a myth, in that case, because we can see from Pan that neither field is strong enough to disintegrate a moonlet, even when it is low density and hammered by collisions.

The E/M field would tend to bounce a large body out of a low orbit, because a level of balance would be impossible to find in a natural way. Large bodies simply don't settle into low orbits with little or no impact trajectory. If they have high incoming velocities, the primary bounces them away with a quick increase in the E/M field. If they have low velocities, the E/M field keeps them at a greater orbital distance.

This is why only very small bodies are found in low orbits. They encounter a small section of the charge field [E/M field], feel a much smaller repulsion, and settle into orbit much more slowly. This is also why they can exist in these low orbits: using their own charge fields, they funnel the primary's charge field around them, encountering a smaller effect. Larger bodies can't do this nearly as efficiently.

... Now let us look at a near approach of Jupiter and Saturn, using these new equations. How close did the two great planets come millions of years ago, in order to create a resonance? We can now find out.

To use my new equation, we have to first calculate new accelerations for Jupiter and Saturn, based only on their radii. We do that with a proportionality with the Earth.

9.81/RE = x/RJ = y/RS
x = 110.7
y = 92.7

R = √{GM/[2A + 2a]}
R = 18,110 km

Saturn may have come that close to Jupiter, in being bounced away by the combined E/M fields (supposing the planets had no tangential velocities relative to one another). That was a very close call, and a much closer pass or a hit might have upset or destroyed the entire Solar System. Our entire history may have depended on that near pass. And in millions of years, when the resonant cycle returns to that near pass, the Solar System will once again hang on the outcome.

This means that the rings and satellite systems of Jupiter and Saturn must have re-formed since that close pass.

[Ancient myths suggest that the two gas giants and the inner rocky planets were all involved in close encounters about the time before the Great Flood.]
93
LK1 Sedimentation / MEGASEQUENCES
« Last post by Admin on February 12, 2017, 08:37:47 pm »
The meaning of the Great Unconformity and Sauk Megasequence

by Michael J. Oard
Grand-Canyon

Figure 1. The Great Unconformity of the Grand Canyon (upper arrow) above another nearly-flat unconformity between Precambrian sedimentary rocks, dipping downward toward the right, and the igneous and metamorphic rocks below (lower arrow).

The Great Unconformity, first defined in the Grand Canyon in 1869, separates the Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone from the underlying Precambrian rocks (the geological column and timescale are used for discussion purposes only). There is some confusion in the Grand Canyon in that there is a second major unconformity between the Precambrian sedimentary rocks and the igneous and metamorphic rocks (figure 1). The uniformitarian origin of the Great Unconformity is supposed to be slow denudation over about a billion years that resulted in a nearly flat planation surface. Then after this denudation, a shallow marine transgression deposited the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale, and Muav Limestone in a fining upward sequence called the Tonto Group.

It is now known that the Great Unconformity has a wide extent over North America, as seen on top of the upper crust. The Great Unconformity is a distinctive physical boundary between mostly igneous rocks of the upper crust and a layer of sandstone. It apparently also occurs on other continents:
There has been confusion on the timing of the formation of the mountaintop planation surfaces.

    “The Great Unconformity is well exposed in the Grand Canyon, but this geomorphic surface, which records the erosion and weathering of continental crust followed by sediment accumulation, can be traced across Laurentia and globally, including Gondwana, Baltica, Avalonia and Siberia, making it the most widely recognized and distinctive stratigraphic surface in the rock record.”1

The Great Unconformity is also considered a unique feature within the last 900 Ma of uniformitarian time.2 The Tonto Group in the Grand Canyon is also recognized as covering about half of North America and is called the Sauk Megasequence,1 the bottom of six megasequences that supposedly account for sedimentation over North America. The Sauk sequence is well defined lithologically on top of the upper crust and locally on Precambrian sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks. However, the other five sequences are based on many assumptions, such as fossil dating and not lithology, and are commonly missing large sections in North America (see below).
The Great Unconformity in Montana and Wyoming

I have observed the Great Unconformity at several locations in Wyoming and Montana. Whereas the Great Unconformity is near the bottom of 1,200 m of flat strata in the Grand Canyon, it occurs at the tops of some mountain ranges in Wyoming and Montana. For instance, there are planation surfaces on the granite and gneiss of the Beartooth Mountains, Wind River Mountains, Bighorn Mountains, and locally in the northern Teton Mountains (figure 2).
Mount-Moran

Figure 2. The top of Mount Moran, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, US, showing the Great Unconformity with a 15 m erosional remnant of Flathead Sandstone (arrow).4 The vertical black rock is a dike of diabase, a basalt-like rock.

However, there has been confusion on the timing of the formation of the mountaintop planation surfaces, i.e. whether these planation surfaces represent the Great Unconformity. This is because there are planation surfaces that formed in the area after the time of the Great Unconformity. For instance, a planation surface exists on the westward-dipping sedimentary rocks on the west side of the Wind River Mountains (figure 3) at about the same elevation as those on the granite and gneiss. A planation surface also exists on the top of the southern Absaroka Mountains. These planing events are much later in ‘geological time’ and so have caused some geologists to believe that the planing event also included the flat-topped granite and gneiss mountains of the upper continental crust: “The age and origin of the high-level erosion surface [in the Wind River Mountains], the Rocky Mountains and others have been the subject of much debate.”3

The Absaroka Mountains represent volcanic breccia flows, called the Absaroka Volcanics, that have piled up about 1,800 m deep over an area of 23,000 km2 and contain multiple levels of vertical petrified trees at numerous locations.4 They are dated Eocene, which is early Cenozoic, within the uniformitarian geological column.

The flows occurred after the Heart Mountain and South Fork detachments and filled in the depression left after the gravity slides.5 After deposition and planing of the Absaroka Mountains, extensive erosion set in to erase the planation surface in the northern portion and produce canyons up to about 1,200 m deep.
Problems with the uniformitarian explanation

The uniformitarian scientists claim that the Great Unconformity represents a long period of continental denudation, well over a billion years at many locations. This is in the context of attempting to explain the evolution of biomineralization by means of the geochemical effects of prolonged continental weathering and denudation.6 However, erosion does not form planation surfaces today, except locally when a river floods and erodes its banks.7 Planation surfaces are being destroyed by present-day erosion, especially by running water that forms channels and valleys. Geomorphologist C.H. Crickmay states:

    “There is no reason to suppose that any kind of wasting ever planes an area to flatness: decrepitation always roughens; rain-wash, even on ground already flat and smooth, tends to furrow it.”8

After the supposed long formation of the Great Unconformity, the Sauk Megasequence then was spread over much of North America. It is believed to represent a continental transgression of the sea but seems contradictory in that the fining upward sequence is so widespread over large areas. A rising sea level in such a transgression would be expected to produce a more chaotic distribution of sediments with much conglomerate over short lateral and vertical spatial scales—unlike the Sauk Megasequence.
A possible diluvial explanation of the Great Unconformity and Sauk Megasequence?
Gypsum-mountain

Figure 3. Planation surface on Gypsum Mountain, northwest Wind River Mountains of westcentral Wyoming. The mountain is composed of carbonate rocks with beds dipping west about 40° to the right.

I have come to the conclusion that the mountaintop planation surfaces on the granite and gneiss of some Wyoming and Montana mountains is really the Great Unconformity that has been exhumed from under thick sedimentary rocks. The evidence for this is that thick sedimentary rocks still cover many mountain ranges of the Rocky Mountains, such as the Owl Creek Range that makes up the southern boundary of the Bighorn basin. The mountains apparently did not uplift enough for all the sedimentary rocks to be eroded off. Moreover, Paleozoic erosional remnants have been left on top of the planation surfaces, such as Beartooth Butte on top of the Beartooth Mountains and a 15-m thick remnant of Flathead Sandstone, equivalent to the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon, on top of Mount Moran (arrow in figure 2). The other mountaintop planation surfaces on the west side of the Wind River Mountains and the Absaroka Mountains would then represent planation during Flood runoff.

The Great Unconformity and Sauk Megasequence, plus the later planation surfaces, can be explained by Flood catastrophic processes. A possible model for the formation of these features follows. The early Flood unleashed the mechanism of the Flood, which I think was caused by impacts.9 The very early Flood should be the most catastrophic part of the Flood, and with multiple impacts very strong currents and turbulence would occur. Such a mechanism would scour the continents down to a planation surface, even causing the second major unconformity below Precambrian sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon. It would also greatly erode the surface and pulverize the sediments into fine particles. Little deposition would occur at this point, except in protected deep basins that are likely impact basins.10

With the waning of the early Flood mechanism, currents and turbulence would decrease and the ‘Great Deposition’ would occur. This deposition resulted in the thick Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments that we observe over much of the continents today. These sedimentary rocks are little deformed, widespread, fine-grained, and show little, if any, erosion within and between the layers, as if all these widespread sediment layers were deposited in one single uninterrupted sequence. In fact, such deposition was admitted by three geologists for the early to middle Paleozoic sedimentary rocks uplifted in the Teton Mountains of northwest Wyoming:

    “The regularity and parallelism of the layers in well-exposed sections suggest that all these rocks were deposited in a single uninterrupted sequence.”11

However, the geologists do not believe their eyes and stretch the deposition of this 600-m thick sequence into 200 Ma because of their stretched-out timescale. Such great time injected between the layers makes no sense based on present day erosional patterns that can erode all the continents to sea level in a few tens of millions of years. Based on erosion today, which is an application of the uniformitarian principle, the data do not support such long time periods subjectively interjected within the sedimentary rocks.
The Great Unconformity is low down in the Grand Canyon but located at the tops of mountains in Wyoming and Montana.

Such widespread deposition of many layers, one on top of the other, with little or no erosion is what we would expect during the early Flood.12 The first megasequence, the Sauk, is well defined as it covers about half of North America, but it looks like the other five megasequences are sketchy with missing megasequences over large areas of North America.

For instance, the next to the oldest megasequence, the Tippecanoe (dated as Ordovician and Silurian), is almost entirely missing from the Grand Canyon area and in Montana and Wyoming. Moreover, the second-youngest megasequence, the Zuni, is missing over most of central and eastern North America. Maybe this was because of erosion. Regardless, further research is required to understand whether such megasequences are real or not and what they may mean.
The warping of the Great Unconformity

Once the thick Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks were deposited in the Rocky Mountains region, great differential uplift (Psalm 104:8) occurred in the Cenozoic to form the current high mountains and deep basins filled with thick sedimentary rocks.13 For instance, the Uinta Mountains of northeast Utah rose up 12 km relative to the adjacent basins during the Cenozoic.14 That is why the Great Unconformity is low down in the Grand Canyon but located at the tops of mountains in Wyoming and Montana. The thick sedimentary rocks were greatly eroded from off many of the ranges in the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau with some of the eroded debris continuing to fill up the valleys and basins of the Rocky Mountains and being transported off the continent to form the continental shelves.15,16 This is the time when the continents were greatly eroded, forming planation surfaces with tall erosional remnants during sheet flow erosion, and pediments, water and wind gaps, deep canyons, and valleys during channelized erosion.13,17

During the channelized erosion, the top several hundred to possibly 1,000 m of sediments and sedimentary rocks eroded from the Rocky Mountain basins and valleys and High Plains of the western United States.

The Flood can indeed explain the big picture geology of the continents, including the Great Unconformity, the Great Deposition starting with the Sauk Megasequence over half of North America, differential vertical tectonics, and the huge erosion of the continents that resulted in all the unique geomorphological features.
Related Articles

    It’s plain to see
    Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks
    The remarkable African Planation Surface
    Can the relative timing of radioisotope dates be applied to biblical geology?

Further Reading

    Noah’s long-distance travelers
    Large cratonic basins likely of impact origin

References and notes

    Peters, S.E. and Gaines, R.R., Formation of the ‘Great Unconformity’ as a trigger for the Cambrian explosion, Nature 484:363, 2012. Return to text.
    Peters and Gaines, ref. 1, p. 366. Return to text.
    Steidtmann, J.R., Middleton, L.T. and Shuster, M.W., Post-Laramide (Oligocene) uplift in the Wind River Range, Wyoming, Geology 17:38, 1989. Return to text.
    Hergenrather, J., Vail, T., Oard, M. and Bokovoy, D., Your Guide to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks: A different Perspective, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2013. Return to text.
    Clarey, T.L., South Fork and Heart Mountain faults: examples of catastrophic, gravity-driven ‘overthrusts’, northwest Wyoming, USA; in: Horstemeyer, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2013. Return to text.
    Peters and Gains, ref. 1, pp. 363–366. Return to text.
    Crickmay, C.H., The Work of the River: A Critical Study of the Central Aspects of Geomorphogeny, American Elsevier, New York, p. 214, 1974. Return to text.
    Crickmay, ref. 7, p. 127. Return to text.
    Oard, M.J., How many impact craters should there be on the earth?, J. Creation 23(3):61–69, 2009. Return to text.
    Oard, M.J., Large cratonic basins likely of impact origin, J. Creation 27(3):118–127, 2013; creation.com/large-cratonic-basins. Return to text.
    Love, J.D., Reed, Jr., J.C. and Pierce, K.L., Creation of the Teton Landscape: A Geological Chronicle of Jackson Hole & and the Teton Range, Grand Teton Association, Moose, WY, p. 42, 2007. Return to text.
    Walker, T., A biblical geological model; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, technical symposium sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 581–592, 1994. Return to text.
    Oard, M.J., Flood by Design: Receding Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2008. Return to text.
    Oard, M.J., The Uinta Mountains and the Flood Part I. Geology, Creation Research Society Quarterly 49(2):109–121, 2012. Return to text.
    Oard, M.J., Surficial continental erosion places the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the late Cenozoic, J. Creation 27(2):62–70, 2013; creation.com/flood-boundary-erosion. Return to text.
    Oard, M.J., Massive erosion of continents demonstrates Flood runoff, Creation 35(3):44–47, 2013; creation.com/flood-runoff. Return to text.
    Oard, M.J., Earth’s surface shaped by Genesis Flood runoff, michael.oards.net. Return to text.
94
Mike Messages / Re: MF 2/10-2/11
« Last post by Admin on February 11, 2017, 10:22:16 am »
Re DRAFT Part 1
2/11) AM

Sunday, February 12, 2017 11:26 PM
    My responses in "M2" below. - Cheers, Mike.

    Date: Sat, February 11, 2017 9:53 pm
    I thought I sent this yersterday or this morning, but it looks like it went to me. So this might be a repeat for you.

    Mike, you're showing me that I have a few more avenues to explore for Part 1.

    _M: Numbers 6 and 7 pose the question: what initiated the Great Flood? I see John Baumgardner proposed in 2007 that rotational tumbling of the earth induced by catastrophic plate tectonics caused megatsunamis. That is quite a leap.

    _L: In 2013 he seemed to propose that an asteroid orbited the Earth elliptically, causing monthly tidal pulls & megatsunamis.

    M2: Earth's angular momentum is a staggering 7.07 x 10 to the 33rd kilograms x meters squared/sec.  Tumbling is out of the question.  The Moon causes monthly tides.  Megatsunamis would require a much larger body, and an erratic orbit to induce flow in orthogonal directions.

    _M: Similarly, getting an asteroid or planetesimal to pass near Earth a number of times, but not hit it, and then leave, as the cause of megatsunamis requires some difficult and precise celestial mechanics, so it seems unlikely.

    _L: What if the planetoid were the Moon? I have a reference paper that shows calculations for circularization of elliptical orbits by dust or gases in space within decades to centuries.

    M2: The Moon would have to be much closer (but beyond the Roche limit) and would only cause water flow along its orbital path.

    _M: a meteorite swarm, associated with the first bombardment population of Moon craters, collapsed Earth's thick vapor canopy ... the sole source of water for the Great Flood.

    _L: Don't you think the oceans existed before the flood? Why do you think ICR's claim against a vapor canopy was wrong? I think the atmosphere was one or two bars thicker than now, like you said onsite, but I'm flexible on what was in the air that was lost, whether more water vapor, oxygen, nitrogen, or CO2. I didn't think precipitation could raise sea level much. How deep flooding do you figure?

    M2: I think a low ocean existed before the Flood.  Vardiman's main objection to a vapor canopy is his estimated temperature at Earth's surface.  I find the vapor canopy to be a reasonable source for a one-time global flood, to provide high atmospheric pressure that could favor gigantism in dinosaurs, and as a reason why rainbows could appear only after the flood.  Without today's mountain ranges (built 300 years post-Flood by SD), Flood waters would only have to rise 1000 feet or less to cover the land.

    _M: Members of the meteorite swarm falling into the ocean led observers on land to mistakenly call the resulting water jets "fountains of the great deep". Note that these started and ended at the same time as the rain deluge.

    _L: That's what Gordon says too. But he thinks precipitation didn't add significantly to the Flood. He says the Hebrew word, "matar", in the Bible meant meteors, and "geshen" meant gushing. I'll try to ask Gordon what he thinks of your statement.

    _M: A persistent question for Flood geology has been why the sediments of the geologic column did not end up on the Pacific Ocean floor. Apparently megatsunamis flowed from the outer oceans onto the protocontinent, scouring and depositing sediment and quadrillions of fossils of sea creatures. It is reasonable to think that each megatsunami grew as the water level rose, reaching farther inland with each wave. Precipitated vapor canopy water falling on land would leave freshwater remains, whereas waves moving in from the coast would leave saltwater remains. Each megatsunami would deposit its own stratigraphic sequence.

    _L: How are you saying that the water canopy was the sole source of the Flood, but that megatsunamis were involved too? I came across a website a couple days ago that said salts were deposited with the dinosaurs out West. How would you determine if Flood deposits involved fresh or salt water? Some NCGT articles claim that the ocean floors do have sedimentary rock. I think the seafloor drilling project found some sedimentary rock above the basalt. Did it not? I found one creationist article that said, I think, that some strata formed across North America and across north Africa before continental drift, but some higher strata also spilled out onto the Atlantic seafloor near Africa, apparently after continental drift had started. That's one reason I think SD may have occurred toward the end of the Flood. Do you think the KT iridium layer came from the SD impact? I thought maybe the Chixilub and others deposited the glass spherules etc below the iridium layer, and the SD impact produced the iridium.

    M2: Paleontologists can distinguish freshwater and saltwater denizens, which still exist today.  Clearly the most sweeping megatsunamis would have come from the rising ocean waters as the rain fell since they covered 60% or more of Earth's surface.  On the other hand, water rising on the protocontinent would have flowed outward.  The sediment layer on the seafloor averages only .5 km thick.  There are lots of examples of spreading and stretching of continental crust involved in separation, which is another reason that brittle Plate Tectonics is faulty.  I think the K-Pg iridium layer and probably the glass spherules are associated with Chicxulub.  Conventional geologists require much time between deposition layers, whereas creationists expect simultaneous multiple deposition.  It was laid down long before the SD event, which I think produced the Australasian tektite strewnfield.

    _M: Regarding an Earth-killer impact, I think it is safe to say that the Moon falling into the Earth would do the trick.

    _L: Sounds like humor there. A friend, Charles, thinks a part of the Moon split off from the Moon and made a fairly soft landing, forming the supercontinent after the Earth had solidified. He reasoned that, otherwise, if it had occurred before Earth solidified, the granite would have melted and made a thin layer all over the Earth. Charles found that stars and planets likely form by electrical forces that cause galactic filaments to implode into plasma double layers. The interior should be solid because of having no degrees of freedom (and absolute zero temperature) where electrons get squeezed out into an upper layer. And a star can have about 5 double layers. Any spherical body in space about 200 miles or more in diameter would have double layers. The inner layers should be liquid. So the aesthenosphere should be liquid. Even 12.8 km deep in the Kola borehole the rock is too plastic to drill any deeper, so he says that's due to lack of sufficient electrons. He thinks the Moho is plasma. By the way, I read lately that the Kola borehole encountered a lot of saltwater most or all of the way down.

    M2: What evidence is there that the Moon ever split?  I think the conventional idea that the Moon formed following a planetesimal impact on Earth is right.  However, I agree that it happened much later than conventionally believed, so that a uniform basalt crustal layer encompassed the Earth at the time of the collision.  The subsequent mixing would have refined the molten basalt and upper mantle to allow differentiation of continental crust.  Seismic tomography indicates that the asthenosphere is solid rock at high temperature, allowing ductile flow.  Drilling 13 km into inland continental crust is less than halfway through.  The rock is probably gabbro under high pressure with enough plasticity to collapse a borehole.  Why would the Moho be plasma?
95
LK1 Sedimentation / Re: DRAFT: Sed Strata from Megatsunamis
« Last post by Admin on February 10, 2017, 01:39:03 pm »
==2_ C14 Dating Diamonds
- D: why would anyone talk about carbon dating something like a diamond? That makes NO sense. It's ONLY useful for dating things that we know were once alive. It tells us with incredible accuracy, up to 50,000 years (with current precision of measurement but it may increase with newer technology) , how long ago the living cells in a material stopped continually replenishing their C14 content, i.e. when they DIED. Based strictly on the carbon dating of formerly living things and disregarding mounds of other evidence, we know factually that there were living things walking the Earth 50,000+ years ago.

Erosion Rate & Seafloor Sediments
- Re: One of the best evidence is coastal and continental erosion. At the current rates of erosion the continents would all erode completely below sea level within 20 million years and the seafloors would have deep deposits of sediment. The seafloors have very little sediment.
- MS: That's completely incorrect. Erosion rates are nowhere near high enough to do that. And the seafloors are made up almost entirely of sedimentary rock, except in the tectonically-active areas where new rock is being formed by subsurface vulcanism.

Impact Overheating
- An impact strong enough to move the Americas by 2000 miles in a day would have turned the planet into a glowing cinder. It wouldn't cause a "Great Flood," as there would be no water left. Or air. Or anything else, other than molten rock. It would send so much crustal material into orbit that the resulting dead rock would have a ring system. There's a good chance that the ring material would impact the moon, creating enough "drag" to slow its orbital speed to the point that it actually crashed back to Earth eventually, effectively destroying both bodies.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=16789.msg294281#msg294281
- Those who do radioactive dating don't agree with your claims.
- Erosion rates don't even vaguely approach what you've claimed.
- Seafloors do have deep deposits of sediment.
- And an impact that could move continents would have destroyed the planet, as far as it being anything approaching something that could have life (and could have actually physically destroyed the planet, turning it into an asteroid belt) .



___BASINS SUPPORT RAPID DEPOSITION
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:
MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PPM IN SEAWATER; MOLAR CONCENTRATION
Silicon 28.1 4 0.000142


=2) Randall Carlson reasoned that Halloween commemorates mass killings of people from meteorite impacts in ancient times when there were many larger meteors in the Taurid meteor stream. Earth crosses this stream each year in early November. Comet Encke appears to be the largest body in that stream now, although it takes hundreds of years to complete an orbit in this elliptical stream. The stream could be where a planet-like body came from that produced megatsunamis on Earth. If this body was the Moon on a former elliptical orbit, it has been determined that such an orbit can become circular within decades to centuries, when there is sufficient stationary hydrogen or dust in the vicinity. Such dust would be produced from asteroid or meteor collisions. Also, there's evidence that Earth's atmosphere was larger in the past, which could also have produced enough drag on the Moon at perigee to help circularize its orbit. We don't have enough evidence yet to decide whether the body was likely the Moon or not.

=2) Jeremy Auldaney: February 2016.  http://auldaney.blogspot.com/2016_02_01_archive.html
Trilobites in limestone are usually un-flattened in a living position, unlike the commonly flattened fossils in shale and slate.
DINOSAUR DEPOSITS CONTAIN SALT FROM THE OCEAN

- The Cambrian Deadwood Formation consists of a lower sandstone with scolithos burrows widely found in similar basal sandstones around the world.
__[- The Moine Thrust - http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/structure/assyntgeology/classic/assynt_shore/prpipes.jpg
- Closely spaced Skolithos burrows of the Tumblagooda Sandstone can be up to 1 metre long
- http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Images/Community-Education/GSWA_Kalbarritracks_01_rdax_620x827.JPG ]
__[Definition of basal conglomerate. A well-sorted, lithologically homogeneous conglomerate that forms the bottom stratigraphic unit of a sedimentary series and that rests on a surface of erosion, thereby marking an unconformity; esp. a coarse-grained beach deposit of an encroaching or transgressive sea.]

96
LK3 Impacts / TW/Young Planets
« Last post by Admin on February 05, 2017, 09:38:41 pm »
Age of the Earth: Creation.com
Young Earth Evidence
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9754-11383-12775
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
by Don Batten
Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10)
Young Earth Evidence from Human History and from BIology
Young Earth Evidence from Geology
Young Earth Evidence from Radiometric Dating
Young Solar System Evidence from Astronomy
Additional Sources
- Astronomical evidence for a young(er) age of the earth and the universe
Saturn's rings are increasingly recognized as being relatively short-lived rather than essentially changeless over millions of years.
- http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_1/j17_1_5-6.pdf
- http://creation.com/lunar-volcanoes-rock-long-age-timeframe
Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth's moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009. See further corroboration: "At Long Last, Moon's Core 'Seen'"; http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/at-long-last-moons-core-seen.html?rss=1
- http://creation.com/article/764
Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.
- http://creation.com/moons-magnetic-puzzle
The moon's former magnetic field. Rocks sampled from the moon's crust have residual magnetism that indicates that the moon once had a magnetic field much stronger than earth's magnetic field today. No plausible 'dynamo' hypothesis could account for even a weak magnetic field, let alone a strong one that could leave such residual magnetism in a billions-of-years time-frame. The evidence is much more consistent with a recent creation of the moon and its magnetic field and free decay of the magnetic field in the 6,000 years since then. Humphreys, D.R., The moon's former magnetic field—still a huge problem for evolutionists, Journal of Creation 26(1):5–6, 2012.
- http://creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/1999/cm0401.pdf
- http://creation.com/cratering
- http://creation.com/lunar-volcanoes-rock-long-age-timeframe
Ghost craters on the moon's maria (singular mare: dark 'seas' formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for the assumed long ages. Enormous impacts evidently caused the large craters and lava flows within those craters, and this lava partly buried other, smaller impact craters within the larger craters, leaving 'ghosts'. But this means that the smaller impacts can't have been too long after the huge ones, otherwise the lava would have flowed into the larger craters before the smaller impacts. This suggests a very narrow time frame for all this cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. They suggest that the cratering occurred quite quickly. See Fryman, H., Ghost craters in the sky, Creation Matters 4(1):6, 1999; A biblically based cratering theory (Faulkner); Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe.
- http://creation.com/mercury-the-tiny-planet-that-causes-big-problems-for-evolution
- http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-223
The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists' 'dynamo' mechanism. See also, Humphreys, D.R., Mercury's magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation 22(3):8–9, 2008.
- http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young
The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long 'dead' if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.
- http://creation.com/focus-194
- http://creation.com/ganymede-magnetic-moon
Jupiter's larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is consistent with creationist Humphreys' predictions. See also, Spencer, W., Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon, Journal of Creation 23(1):8–9, 2009.
- http://creation.com/article/685
Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year's age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced.
- http://creation.com/store
The surface of Jupiter's moon Europa. Studies of the few craters indicated that up to 95% of small craters, and many medium-sized ones, are formed from debris thrown up by larger impacts. This means that there have been far fewer impacts than had been thought in the solar system and the age of other objects in the solar system, derived from cratering levels, have to be reduced drastically (see Psarris, Spike, What you aren't being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD, available from CMI).
- http://creation.com/focus-273-creation-magazine
- http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=1478
Methane on Titan (Saturn's largest moon)—the methane should all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown. The products of photolysis should also have produced a huge sea of heavier hydrocarbons such as ethane. An Astrobiology item titled "The missing methane" cited one of the Cassini researchers, Jonathan Lunine, as saying, "If the chemistry on Titan has gone on in steady-state over the age of the solar system, then we would predict that a layer of ethane 300 to 600 meters thick should be deposited on the surface." No such sea is seen, which is consistent with Titan being a tiny fraction of the claimed age of the solar system (needless to say, Lunine does not accept the obvious young age implications of these observations, so he speculates, for example, that there must be some unknown source of methane).
- http://creation.com/the-age-and-fate-of-saturns-rings
The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn's rings is inconsistent with their supposed vast age; they speak of youthfulness.
- Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the 'billions of years' mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead, but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30 million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn does not explain its youthful activity (Psarris, Spike, What you aren't being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD; Walker, T., 2009. Enceladus: Saturn's sprightly moon looks young, Creation 31(3):54–55).
- http://creation.com/article/685
Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have been long since dead, if billions of years old, but its extreme surface features suggest otherwise. See Revelations in the solar system.
- http://creation.com/neptune-monument-to-creation
Neptune should be long since 'cold', lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet Voyager II in 1989 found it to be otherwise—it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years. See Neptune: monument to creation.
- http://creation.com/revelations-in-the-solar-system
Neptune's rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. Revelations in the solar system.
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103507003004
Young surface age of Neptune's moon, Triton—less than 10 million years, even with evolutionary assumptions on rates of impacts (see Schenk, P.M., and Zahnle, K. On the Negligible Surface Age of Triton, Icarus 192(1):135–149, 2007.
97
LK2 Fossils & Dating / From Creation.com
« Last post by Admin on February 05, 2017, 09:20:46 pm »
Age of the Earth: Creation.com
Young Earth Evidence
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9754-11383-12775
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
by Don Batten
Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10)
Young Earth Evidence from Human History and from BIology
Young Earth Evidence from Geology
Young Earth Evidence from Radiometric Dating
Young Solar System Evidence from Astronomy
Additional Sources
- - Young Earth Evidence from Geology
- http://creation.com/world-s-oldest-salt-lake-only-a-few-thousand-years-old
The amount of salt in the world's oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah's Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth.
- http://creation.com/surtsey-the-young-island-that-looks-old
- http://creation.com/tuluman-a-test-of-time
Observed examples of rapid island formation and maturation, such as Surtsey, which confound the notion that such islands take long periods of time to form. See also, Tuluman—A Test of Time.
- http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://www.icr.org/article/98
The recent and almost simultaneous origin of all the high mountain ranges around the world—including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies—which have undergone most of the uplift to their present elevations beginning 'five million' years ago, whereas mountain building processes have supposedly been around for up to billions of years. See Baumgardner, J., Recent uplift of today's mountains. Impact 381, March 2005.
- Niagara Falls
Erosion rates at places like Niagara Falls are consistent with a time frame of several thousand years since Noah's Flood.
- http://creation.com/niagara-falls-and-the-bible
Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood. However, much of the Niagara Gorge likely formed very rapidly with the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz; see: Climate change, Niagara and catastrophe.
- River delta growth rate is consistent with thousands of years since the biblical Flood, not vast periods of time. The argument goes back to Mark Twain. E.g. 1. Mississippi—Creation Research Quarterly (CRSQ) 9:96–114, 1992; CRSQ 14:77; CRSQ 25:121–123. E.g. 2 Tigris–Euphrates: CRSQ 14:87, 1977.
- http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://www.icr.org/quotes
Underfit streams. River valleys are too large for the streams they contain. Dury speaks of the "continent-wide distribution of underfit streams". Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concluded that past streams frequently had 20–60 times their current discharge. This means that the river valleys would have been carved very quickly, not slowly over eons of time. See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, 1983.
- http://creation.com/salty-seas-evidence-for-a-young-earth
Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
- http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world
The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that higher erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah's Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
- Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2006. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
- http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_3/j14_3_83-90.pdf
The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val'cumey, northern Siberia. Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):83–90.
- Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. "Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid." —Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
- http://creation.com/caving-in-to-reality
Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. See also articles on limestone cave formation.
- http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young
The decay of the earth's magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of only thousands of years. For further evidence that it follows exponential decay with a time constant of 1611 years (±10) see: Humphreys, R., Earth's magnetic field is decaying steadily—with a little rhythm, CRSQ 47(3):193–201; 2011.
- http://creation.com/lord-kelvin-revisited-on-the-young-age-of-the-earth
Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. See Woodmorappe, J., 1999. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth, Journal of Creation (TJ) 13(1):14, 1999.

-----

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&sid=c812216a6d211b1444acfc893e19f7bf&start=225#p41008
postby webolife » Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:12 pm
Actually no, not permineralization in the conventional sense of long slow replacement of minerals into cellular tissue.
The "infusion" I was speaking of was the abiotic infusion of methane into sediments containing the plant and other materials causing a more rapid "transmutation" as it were of carbohydrates into hydrocarbons. The "glassy" appearance of petrified wood, however, is belied by the FACT that microscopic cellular structures are often preserved in the fossilized wood. The better describer of these woods is "opal" [quartz included with water]. This can be done in hours in the lab, and hot silica-saturated water in a matrix of clay is the main agent. The stuff I've collected over in Frenchmen Hills in E. Washington has many structures well detailed in cross-sections, including "separated" pithy materials that come out almost like toothpicks. Anyway, I'm open to electrification as a heat source, but still in wondering mode about the mechanisms of direct electrical transmutation.

Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=123&sid=4fabd2f6bf098ea2c40c96ea9994d74e&start=135#p20294
postby Lloyd » Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:00 pm
* Well, I'm still working on comparing fresh bones with fossil bones.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossilhow.html
-     * The fossil has the same shape as the original object, but is chemically more like a rock! Some of the original hydroxy-apatite (a major bone consitiuent) remains, although it is saturated with silica (rock).
    * There are six ways that organisms can turn into fossils, including:
    -1* unaltered preservation (like insects or plant parts trapped in amber, a hardened form of tree sap)
    -2* permineralization=petrification (in which rock-like minerals seep in slowly and replace the original organic tissues with silica, calcite or pyrite, forming a rock-like fossil - can preserve hard and soft parts - most bone and wood fossils are permineralized)
    -3* replacement (An organism's hard parts dissolve and are replaced by other minerals, like calcite, silica, pyrite, or iron)
    -4* carbonization=coalification (in which only the carbon remains in the specimen - other elements, like hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are removed)
    -5* recrystalization (hard parts either revert to more stable minerals or small crystals turn into larger crystals)
    -6* authigenic preservation (molds and casts of organisms that have been destroyed or dissolved).
- * This, however, is another possible means of fossilization in a short time.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i6n.htm*
-     After some experimentation, the researchers found a way to overcome a dead bird's buoyancy. When a carcass was dropped onto moist sediments that contained clay, the material soaked into the bird's feathers and bound the body to the mud in just a few minutes. Later, when water was added to the tank, the stuck-in-the-mud carcass remained submerged. 5
    * Taking their work even further, Krauss and his team added enough sediment to the tanks to bury the submerged carcasses. Then, they placed weights on the mud to increase the pressure, as a naturally buried body would experience if accumulating lake sediments gradually covered it. The team left the bodies in place for 3 years.
    * When the researchers unearthed their samples, they found that the patterns and extent of preservation of the faux-fossil birds were remarkably similar to those seen in actual fossils millions of years old. This resemblance suggests that the remains of ancient birds might have begun their process of fossilization in just such a way, Krauss notes. The team's findings may enable scientists to better interpret fossils and deduce the environments in which they formed, he adds. 6
    * You’ve probably read creationist claims of hats or fence posts that fossilized in just a few years. Creationists generally claim that the proper conditions, not long periods of time, are all that are needed for fossilization. That’s what Briggs’ experiment showed. Briggs doesn’t know exactly what the proper conditions are, but some eggs mineralized, and some didn’t, despite being buried for the same amount of time. Furthermore, the durations of the tests were very short, geologically speaking. It took just weeks or months for the process to begin. If they had more patience, they would have seen more mineralization (in those situations where the conditions were favorable).
- * This is just kind of interesting.
http://www.desertusa.com/mag06/may/shells.html
-     * Some clamshell fossils contain up to a hundred fish fossils inside.
- postby Lloyd » Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:33 pm
* In my recent message I said I found that for fresh bones the Total bone composition is: 45% O, 15% H, 15% Ca, 13% C, 9% P
* In the last message I quoted a statement on fossil bone contents as either: calcite [crystallized calcium carbonate CaCO3], silica [SiO2], pyrite [iron disulfide FeS2], or iron.
* Here's a side-by-side comparison [1st column is fresh bone contents]:
O Ca C H P ........ bones
O Ca C Si S Fe .... fossils
* This shows that calcium sometimes remains as calcium;
P+H or O+O may combine by transmutation to form S, part of pyrite;
O+C may likewise combine to form Si, part of silica;
Si+4Li or 2Si-2H may form Fe, part of pyrite.
* So the existing contents of fresh bone can supply the elements found in fossil bones.
98
LK1 Sedimentation / From Creation.com
« Last post by Admin on February 05, 2017, 09:17:55 pm »
Age of the Earth: Creation.com
Young Earth Evidence
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9754-11383-12775
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
by Don Batten
Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10)
Young Earth Evidence from Human History and from BIology
Young Earth Evidence from Geology
Young Earth Evidence from Radiometric Dating
Young Solar System Evidence from Astronomy
Additional Sources
---
Young Earth Evidence from Geology
Geological evidence for a young age of the earth

Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks
http://creation.com/defining-the-flood-post-flood-boundary-in-sedimentary-rocks

Search Cement, Cement agent, Lithification
http://creation.com

- http://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days
Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a young age of the earth.
- http://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days
Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an 'era' buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah's day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
- http://creation.com/feedback-2000-and-before
- http://creation.com/warped-earth
Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See Warped earth (written by a geophysicist).
- http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood
- http://creation.com/the-yellowstone-petrified-forests
- http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://www.icr.org/pressing-on-for-creation
- http://creation.com/forests-that-grew-on-water
Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Araucaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
- http://creation.com/coal-volcanism-and-noahs-flood
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
- http://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
- http://creation.com/creating-opals
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
- http://creation.com/article/3007
Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
- http://creation.com/instant-petrified-wood
Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
- http://creation.com/fluidisation-pipes-evidence-of-large-scale-watery-catastrophe
Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when they formed. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See, Walker, T., Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe, Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):8–9, 2000.
- http://creation.com/the-case-of-the-missing-geologic-time
Para(pseudo)conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a 'flat gap'. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies between the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona. See Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe, ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994 and Snelling, A., The case of the 'missing' geologic time, Creation 14(3):31–35, 1992.
- http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth#paraconformities
The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many millions of years of 'gap' time. See references in Para(pseudo)conformities.
- http://creation.com/the-case-of-the-missing-geologic-time
Inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time. The case of the 'missing' geologic time; Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question, CRSQ 23(4):160–167.
- http://creation.com/the-three-sisters-strong-evidence-for-noahs-flood-in-australia
The lack of bioturbation (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the 'given' timescale of billions of years.
- http://creation.com/paleosols-digging-deeper-buries-challenge-to-flood-geology
The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of 'fossil' soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If 'deep time' were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., CRSQ 39:252–68; CRSQ 40:99–116, 2003; Walker, T., Paleosols: digging deeper buries 'challenge' to Flood geology, Journal of Creation 17(3):28–34, 2003.
- http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth#paraconformities
Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the 'great unconformity' at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See Para(pseudo)conformities.
- http://creation.com/a-classic-tillite-reclassified-as-a-submarine-debris-flow
The discovery that underwater landslides ('turbidity currents') travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow (Technical).
- http://creation.com/experiments-on-stratification-of-heterogeneous-sand-mixtures
- http://creation.com/sedimentation-experiments-nature-finally-catches-up
- http://creation.com/sandy-stripes
Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! and Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years?
- http://creation.com/canyon-creation
- http://creation.com/a-canyon-in-six-days
- http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_45-46.pdf
Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.
- http://creation.com/vanishing-coastlines
Rate of erosion of coastlines, horizontally. E.g. Beachy Head, UK, loses a metre of coast to the sea every six years.
- http://creation.com/eroding-ages
Rate of erosion of continents vertically is not consistent with the assumed old age of the earth. See Creation 22(2):18–21.
- http://creation.com/antiquity-of-landforms
- http://creation.com/eroding-ages
- http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://www.icr.org/quotes
Existence of significant flat plateaux that are 'dated' at many millions of years old ('elevated paleoplains'). An example is Kangaroo Island (Australia). C.R. Twidale, a famous Australian physical geographer wrote: "the survival of these paleoforms is in some degree an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development." Twidale, C.R. On the survival of paleoforms, American Journal of Science 5(276):77–95, 1976 (quote on p. 81). See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, April 1983.
- http://creation.com/do-rivers-erode-through-mountains
Water gaps. These are gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call 'discordant drainage systems'. They are 'discordant' because they don't fit the deep time belief system. The evidence fits them forming rapidly in a much younger age framework where the gorges were cut in the recessive stage / dispersive phase of the global Flood of Noah's day. See Oard, M., Do rivers erode through mountains? Water gaps are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, Creation 29(3):18–23, 2007.
- http://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form
http://creation.com/the-recent-origin-of-bass-strait-oil-and-gas
Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth (although not necessary for a young earth).
99
LK1 Sedimentation / Re: Igneous Origin of Salt
« Last post by Admin on February 05, 2017, 12:27:42 pm »
Does Salt Come from Evaporated Sea Water?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D. *

Seawater contains a variety of salts, and when seawater evaporates, these solids are left behind. The most abundant salt in seawater is sodium chloride (NaCl) which will be referred to in this article simply as salt (technically it is called halite).

Layers of salt occur naturally in the geologic record, comprising an abundant source of salt for human consumption worldwide. Today, some salt deposits are land derived, as when salty water seeps from the rocks of Grand Canyon, evaporates and leaves a salty residue. Others are related to enclosed coastal lagoons, which fill up with seawater during a storm, but whose waters are trapped and evaporate between storms. Thus, salt deposits are classed as evaporites.

If a basin of seawater 100 feet thick were to evaporate, only about 2 feet of salt would be left behind. Can seawater evaporation account for all "evaporites"? If so, multiplied millions of years would be necessary for their build up, for some salt beds are extremely thick and wide. The salt deposits often occur in layers covering thousands of square miles with salt hundreds of feet thick.

Old earth uniformitarian thinking postulates an enclosed basin or coastal lagoon which repeatedly floods and evaporates over long periods of time, allowing thick deposits of salt to build up. The mind boggles at huge basins undergoing identical cycles of flooding and evaporation uncountable times, all the while remaining in the same location for millions and millions of years. By contrast, modern lagoons fill in, migrate, erode—there is no long-term stability for coastal features.

The regionally extensive salt beds in the geologic record are quite different from evaporites forming today. Seawater contains many chemical and mineral impurities as well as both single-celled and multi-celled plants and animals and any exposed dry lagoon will be an active life zone. Thus, modern evaporites are quite impure. But the major salt deposits in the geologic record are absolutely pure salt! Salt mines simply crush it and put it on the store shelf. Surely these large, pure salt beds are not evaporated seawater. Some other process must have formed them.

As with many features in geology, catastrophic views are replacing the old, impotent uniformitarian ones. Many have observed that the large salt accumulations occur in basins formed by major tectonic downwarping, often associated with ancient volcanic eruptions. The evidence does not fit with the idea of a trapped lagoon. Where are the fossils? Where are the impurities?

Many now think the salt was extruded in superheated, supersaturated salt brines from deep in the earth along faults. Once encountering the cold ocean waters, the hot brines could no longer sustain the high concentrations of salt, which rapidly precipitated out of solution, free of impurities and marine organisms.

The great Flood of Noah's day provides the proper context. During the Flood, great volumes of magma, water, metals, and chemicals, were extruded onto the surface from the depths of the earth, as the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) spewed forth hot volcanic materials. Today we find them (especially salt) interbedded with Flood sediments, just as the "Back to Genesis" model predicts.

* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Morris, J. 2002. Does Salt Come from Evaporated Sea Water? Acts & Facts. 31 (11).
100
LK1 Sedimentation / DRAFT: Sed Strata from Megatsunamis
« Last post by Admin on February 05, 2017, 09:44:40 am »
FLOOD CATASTROPHISM
PART 1. MEGATSUNAMIS DEPOSITED THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN
This is Part 1 of a 4 part series. Parts 2-4 will cover Dating Methods & Human Evidence, Impacts and Continental Drift.

Abstract
There must have been a supercontinent, as we will show in Part 4 on Continental Drift. One or more asteroids (or small planet-like bodies) must have come unusually close to Earth periodically to produce megatsunamis by tidal action. The megatsunamis sorted and deposited nearly all of Earth's sedimentary strata in six megasequences (partially sheet-eroded) on about 75% of the supercontinent in a geologically short timespan. These occurred before orogenesis and continental drift. Many of the smaller asteroids impacted on Earth. The largest impact split the supercontinent, making the continents and initiating orogeny.

A major geological observation is that most sedimentary strata are fairly horizontal & conforming, mostly sorted into one or two kinds of sediment in each stratum.(i)

Categories of evidence + opposing arguments:
1. Area & thicknesses of strata
2. Sorting of sediments
3. Sources of sediments and cementing agents
4. Rate of deposition
5. Preservation of delicate fossils>

1. Gradual erosion & deposition (GED) cannot form horizontal sedimentary strata, but can only form sloped alluvial & delta fans.(1)
_a. Turbulent floods can sort and deposit horizontal strata, as found at the Mt. St. Helens volcanic site in the 1980s and the Colorado Bijou Creek flood site in 1965.(1a) <<____
_b. The larger a flood is, the larger is the area over which it deposits strata.
_c. Most sedimentary strata cover very large areas of continents or of a former supercontinent.(1c) <<____
_d. This requires a continent- or supercontinent-wide flood or floods.

2. GED cannot sort sediments into different broad horizontal beds that show little to no signs of erosion between strata.(2) <<____
_a. GED can only produce sloped strata on lake or sea floors or banks over relatively small areas.(2a) <<____.
_b. There cannot have been thousands of years of gradual erosion depositing only one kind of sediment, such as sand, in a shallow inland sea, then thousands of years depositing only another kind of sediment, such as clay, over the sand, and then more millennia depositing just lime or growing shells etc forming limestone.
_c. That is because there are no large upstream sources of such pure materials and no signs of such sources from the past.
_d. The lack of erosion between conforming strata is further evidence that the strata were sorted and deposited by floodwaters that soon receded, not by GED.

3. GED cannot fill basins with strata that conform with the shape of the basin walls & floor.
_a. Conforming strata occur mostly in horizontal beds and formerly horizontal beds, but also in curved forms, mainly in basins and mountain ranges.(3a) <<____
_b. GED can only form sloped fan and floor strata.(2a)
_c. But most basins have contoured/conforming strata.(3b) <<____

4. GED cannot bury delicate or large organisms or preserve them as fossils.
_a. Local turbulent floods can bury large organisms in small areas, but the burial does not keep out bacteria & small organisms that decompose the remains.(5a) <<____
_b. Only great overburden pressure or heat can prevent decomposition and allow fossilization.(5b) <<____
_c. A turbulent flood cannot preserve delicate fossils.
_d. Delicate fossils required gradual burial over minutes to days, followed by increasing overburden.(5d) <<____
_e. Examples of delicate fossils are tracks, burrows, feeding traces, sea lilies, jellyfish & fishes.

5. Catastrophic flooding can provide conditions for lithification better than GED can.(5) <<____
_a. Lime is one of the most common cementing agents and degassing of ocean water would have made CO2 available to form limestone and other carbonates.(5a) <<____
_b. Silica is also a common cementing agent and would have been more available from precipitation and turbulent oceans.(5b) <<____
_c. Iron oxide would also have been available in the same ways to help cement very hard sandstones etc.(5c) <<____
_d. Clay is self cementing.(5d) <<____
_e. Heat and pressure are important conditions for some lithification, which were provided under catastrophic conditions of impacts, volcanism and deep deposits of sediments.(5e) <<____

6. 25 basins from around the Mediterranean to eastern China and a few in the Americas apparently contain the entire geologic column.(6) <<____
_a. Some basins seem to have formed as impact craters.(6a) <<____
_b. Basins would have filled in during the 6 megatsunamis, with sediments conforming largely to basin contours as proven in experiments.(6b) <<____
_c. If GED occurred and frequent tremors or tides or something caused the sediments to spread out across the floor of a basin, the sediments should have gone to the bottom as flat layers, instead of as conforming to the basin shapes.(6c) <<____
_d. Some of the sediments on higher ground washed off by sheet erosion as megatsunami tides receded, leaving many continental areas without some or many strata.(6d) <<____
_e. 25% of continent surfaces have no sedimentary strata: i.e. N & E Canada - Greenland - Scandinavia and E South America - Southern Africa - E India - W & N Australia - Antarctica.(6e) <<____
_f. Either megatsunamis didn't reach those locations, or sheet erosion washed all of the sediments there into the oceans.

7. What could cause major flooding of a continent or supercontinent?
_a. Precipitation flooding would be insufficient: if the atmosphere were much larger than now and it held a large percent of water vapor, if something caused most of the water vapor to precipitate, it would likely only raise sea level a few meters.(6a) <<____
_b. Natural dam break flooding is insufficient: the Missoula flood is the largest one known and it only produced a small amount of strata.(6b) <<____
_c. Sea level rise is improbable from glacial melting and would also be insufficient and not turbulent enough.(6c) <<____
_d. Normal tsunamis, caused by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, or small impacts, are too small to flood whole continents.(6d) <<____
_e. But megatsunamis could do the job.(6e)

8. What could cause megatsunamis?
_a. Large impacts in the ocean could, or a close approach of an asteroid could also, by tidal effect.
_b. Sedimentary strata are divided into six megasequences with disconformities between them.(7b) <<____
_c. The disconformities were apparently caused by minor erosion on the upper surface of each lower megasequence by rain over short periods of time.
_d. Thus there must have been six major ocean impacts every few weeks or months apart, or there must have been six close approaches of one or more asteroids, weeks or months apart.
_e. It seems more probable that an asteroid on a temporary elliptical orbit around the Earth would cause repeating tsunamis.
_f. Calculations show that dust and gases in space ejected during impacts would cause an elliptical orbit to circularize within decades.(7f) <<____
_g. An asteroid the size of the Moon would raise tides 2.5 km high, if it were ____ km from Earth at its perigee.(7g) <<____

9. Megatsunamis meet all of the requirements for a source of Earth's geologic column.
_a. The tide from an asteroid's close approach to Earth would start to rise gradually, stirring up and raining down light sediment on delicate organisms, traces and ripple marks etc for a few hours.
_b. Due to loss of much atmosphere, CO2 would degas in the oceans, forming lime.(8b) <<____
_c. As the asteroid approached perigee the tides would reach maximum velocity and great amounts of clay, silt and sand from the ocean floor and continental shelf would flow over and deposit on large areas of continents or the supercontinent.(8c) <<____
_d. The sediments would separate largely according to grain size, forming horizontal or contoured beds of strata.(8d) <<____
_e. Many organisms would be buried and the overburden would increase to many meters thick.
_f. As the asteroid moved away and the tide receded, water would drain from the sediments, gradually removing buoyancy of sediments around entombed organisms, thus allowing them to gradually compress.(8f) <<____See Taylor re Ohio sharks<<
_g. Lime from the ocean waters would help cement and lithify the sediments.(8g) <<____
_h. Each return of the asteroid to and past perigee would have formed another megasequence of strata.

10. Calculations. John Baumgardner calculated how large megatsunamis would have been in order to deposit the geologic column.(10) <<____
_a. They would have been about 2.5 km high.(10a) <<____
_b. Each one would have deposited about .4 km of sediments to make a megasequence of strata, so six of them would have deposited an average of 1.8 km after sheet-eroding some of it away.(10b) <<____
_c. They could have occurred a few weeks or months apart over a few months' or years' time.(10c) <<____
_d. The flooding would have occurred for a few days during each orbital cycle.(10d) <<____
_e. The rest of the time the floods would have receded before the next cycle repeated
_f. To produce waves 2.5 km high, a body the size of the Moon would have been ____ km from Earth, center to center.(10f) <<____
_g. A smaller body would have come closer; a larger body would have come less close.

REFERENCES & NOTES
_i. The main support for GED is radiometric dating, which we will discuss extensively in Part 2 on Dating Methods and Human Evidence.
_1. Recognizing Depositional Environments ~ Learning Geology - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SNYTo-hUATY/VkHkb52nkEI/AAAAAAAACWU/qVLuDZrjQWY/s1600/6.17.jpg
- also http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v36n1/fig05-10.jpg
- and http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v36n1/fig05-09.jpg.
_1a. Turbulent floods can sort and deposit horizontal strata, as found at the Mt. St. Helens volcanic site in the 1980s. <<____
_1c. Most sedimentary strata cover very large areas of continents or of a former supercontinent.
_2. <<____
_3a. Mountain range strata will be covered in Part 4.
_3b. <<____
_4. <<____
_4a. <<____
_5a. <<____
_5b. <<____
_5d. <<____
_6a. <<____
_6b. <<____
_6c. <<____
_6d. <<____
_6e. Megatsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami
"The asteroid linked to the extinction of dinosaurs, which created the Chicxulub crater in Yucatán approximately 66 million years ago, would have caused an over 100 metres  330 ft) tall megatsunami. The height of the tsunami was limited due to relatively shallow sea in the area of the impact; in deep sea it would be 4.6 kilometres  2.9 mi) tall." Bryant, Edward (June 2014) . Tsunami: The Underrated Hazard. Springer. p. 178. ISBN 9783319061337.
_7b. <<____
_7c. <<____
_7f. <<____
_7g. <<____
_8b. <<____
_8c. <<____
_8d. <<____
_8f. <See Taylor re Ohio sharks>
_8g. <<____
_9. Mountains will be explained in Part 4 on Continental Drift.
_9a. <Show MI crater>
_9b. <Show map of basin locations>
_9c. http://www.fortunebay.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/michiganbasin-cross-big.jpg
_9d. http://images.slideplayer.com/5/1507022/slides/slide_12.jpg
_9e. <Show map of various continental sediments>
_9f. <Show map of continents with & without sediments>
_10. <<____
_10a. <<____
_10b. <<____
_10c. <<____
_10d. <<____
_10f. <<____


11. Criticisms from The Talk.Origins Archive(11) <<____<Dating in Part 2>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn

(11) <<____<Dating in Part 2>
_(11a) Sedimentation Rate & Orbital Cycles
(Argument:) The Cretaceous Carlile shale consists of sands and shales. Fourier analysis of the Niobrara laminations reveals that they vary in thickness according to the periodicities of the earth's long-term orbital cycles (Fischer, 1993, p. 263-295).

A:

_(11b) Multi-Year-Old Organisms Fossilized

--(11b1) Oncolite Algae Growth
(Argument:) There are also oncolites, an algal growth on shells after the animals die which took time to grow (Wardlaw and Reinson, 1971, p. 1762) . An excellent example of an oncolite is shown in figure 58 of Dean and Fouch (1983, p. 123) . It says: "Cross section of an oncolite developed around a gastropod-shell nucleus from Ore Lake, Michigan. Concentric layering is the result of annual couplets of porous and dense laminae.)

A:

--(11b2) Multi-Year-Old Coccolith Growth
(Argument:) The Greenhorn limestone is made mostly of coccoliths, small skeletal remains approximately 3-5 micrometers in diameter about 40 ft thick, 16 ledge-forming, burrowed limestone beds separated by thin shales. The coccoliths had to grow in the water, then die and fall to the bottom; then organisms had to burrow into the sediment; then when coccoliths were not as productive, shale was deposited, separating the limestone beds, all requiring still water.

A:

--(11b3) Multi-Year-Old Stromatolites
(Argument:) The Duperow formation has stromatolites (limestone rocks deposited by daily increments of limestone from algae on a shallow (less than 30 feet) sea bottom (Burke, 1982, p. 554; Altschuld and Kerr, 1983, p. 104) .

A:

_(11c) No Fossil Organisms Like Today's
(Argument:) The upper Jurassic Continental Morrison formation has footprints (Stokes, 1957, p. 952-954) , fossil soil profiles (Mantzios, 1989, p. 1166) , mammals, plants, some coal (Brown, 1946, p 238-248) huge dinosaurs and smaller ones. The animals and plants are different from anything alive today.

A: http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils
- http://creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaurs

_(11d) Dolomite Overheating
(Argument:) 1300 feet of Bighorn Dolomite can not be Great Flood deposits because each gram of carbonate gives off about 1207 kilocalories per mole (Whittier et al, 1992, p. 576) . To deposit these beds in one year requires that the energy emitted by each meter squared would be 278 times that received by the sun.

A:

_(11e) Delicate Fossils
(Argument:) There are also abundant fecal pellets and feeding traces (Hattin, 1971, p. 412-431; Savrda and Bottjer, 1993, p. 263-295) [and other delicate fossils].

A:

_(11f) Too Many Similar Fossils

--(11f1) Too Much Bioclastic Limestone
(Argument:) The lower part of the Devonian formations consist of bioclastic limestone, and the upper part interbedded carbonate with anhydrite.

A: http://creation.com/can-flood-geology-explain-thick-chalk-beds
- https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_1/j10_1_107-113.pdf
- http://creation.com/grand-canyon-limestone-fast-or-slow-deposits
- ? http://creation.com/not-ancient-reefs-but-catastrophic-deposits
 
--(11f2) Too Many Crinoids
(Argument:) The Mississippian Madison group largely consists of dead crinoid parts. (Clark and Stearn, 1960, pp. 86-88) : The upper Mission Canyon formation or the Livingstone formation (of Alberta) is a massive limestone formation composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. The Livingstone limestone may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates, enough crinoids to cover the entire earth to a depth of 3 inches, but only a small part of a vast Mississippian crinoid bed that almost does cover the world (Morton, 1984, p. 26-27), U.S., Canada, England, Belgium, European Russia, Egypt, Libya, central Asia, and Australia.

A:

_(11g) Non-Flood Sorting of Sediments & Fossils

--(11g1) The geologic column is not sorted by ecological zones. The Silurian Interlake, Devonian Prairie, Pennsylvanian Minnelusa and Jurassic Morisson formations are continental deposits. Oceanic deposits sandwich these beds. The ocean came and went many times.

A:

--(11g2) The Pierre shale has marine reptile bones concentrated in the Sharon Springs member, not sorted as Morris would assume by ecological zonation.

A:

--(11g3) The geologic column is not divided by hydrodynamic sorting.

A:

--(11g4) Fossil mammals are not found with the earliest dinosaurs & no primates are found until the Ft. Union formation or that no full dinosaur skeletons are found in the Tertiary section, implies strongly that the column was not the result of a single cataclysm. Worldwide, no whales are found with the large Devonian fish. If the column was an ecological burial pattern, then whales and porpoises should be buried with the fish.

A:

--(11g5) The Paleozoic corals belong to one of three groups - only one of which is found in Mesozoic rocks; the other two became extinct at the end of the Paleozoic. The four-sided corals are only found in the Paleozoic. Modern corals of the 6-sided or 8-sided kind are not found until the Triassic.

A:

--(11g6) Permian pollen is found in the salt; modern pollen is not found (Wilgus and Holser, 1984, p. 765,766) .

A: http://creation.com/pollen-paradox

_(11h) Impossibility of Geocolumn Deposition in Short Timespan
There is no way to have the whole column be deposited in a single year.

A:

_(11i) Too Much Evaporites [They aren't evaporites; they're magma deposits]

--(11i1) The Opeche shale in the center of the basin, at its deepest part, is 300 feet of salt covering 188,400 square kilometers.

A: __[How fast could brine dry out between tsunamis? Or could it dry out under a load of salty limestone?]

--(11i2) The Silurian Interlake formation consists of carbonates, anhydrite, salt, with minor amounts of sand & throughout this deposit are also burrows and mudcracks from drying out of the layers (Lobue, 1983, p. 36,37) .

A: __[If each megatsunami came a few weeks apart, would it be enough time to dry out & form mudcracks, anhydrite, salt etc?]

--(11i3) Anhydrite is an evaporitic mineral not compatible with a global flood. The next Devonian bed is the Prairie Evaporite. It consists of dolomite, salt, gypsum, anhydrite and potash. These are generally considered evaporitic and thus incompatible with deposition during a worldwide flood (Gerhard, Anderson and Fischer, 1990, p. 515) .

A: __[Were there heat sources during the cataclysm & enough time between tsunamis for significant evaporation?]

--(11i4) There is also salt cementation with salt deposited in the fractures and crevices in the rock. Halite plugged burrows are also found.

A: __[Could the source of salt be like the brine lake under the Gulf of Mexico carried by tsunamis?]

--(11i5) The Triassic Spearfish formation contains the Pine Salt Bed, some gypsum and highly oxidized sands and shales, found in modern arid environments, gypsum being an evaporitic mineral (Wilmarth, 1938, p. 2037) . There are conglomerates in which the Mississippian rocks were deposited, hardened, then eroded and fragments deposited in the Spearfish redbeds. (Francis, 1956, p. 18)

A: __[How long does it take gypsum to dry out in air, or under overburden?]

--(11i6) The early oceanic sediments are covered by desert deposits of the Prairie Evaporite, Interlake, and Minnelusa formations. Oncolites found in the Interlake prove that these deposits took some time to be deposited. There are 11 separate salt beds scattered through four ages: 2 Jurassic Salt beds, 1 Permian salt bed, 7 Mississippian salt beds, and one thick Devonian salt. Half of these salt beds are up to 200 feet thick. The top Mississippian salt is 96% pure sodium chloride! Since they are sandwiched between other sediments, to explain them on the basis of a global, one-year flood, requires a mechanism by which undersaturated sea water can dump its salt. If the sea were super-saturated during the flood, then no fish would have survived.

A: __[Would these salt deposits all be from undersea brine lakes?]

--(11i7) The Minnelusa formation contains three features incompatible with the flood: dolomite with desiccation cracks; two anhydrite layers with a peculiar "chicken-wire" structure (Achauer, 1982, p. 195) ; cross-bedding identical to modern desert dunes; "chicken-wire" anhydrite only forms above 35 degree C. and near the water table (Hsu, 1972, p. 30) . This type of anhydrite is deposited in the Persian Gulf area today.

A: __[Would a few weeks time between tsunamis be enough time to produce these effects?]

--(11i8) The erosional layers and the evaporative salt requires much more time than a single year to account for the whole column.

A: __[Is that true?]

_(11j) Slow-Settling Particles

--(11j1) The Bakken formation is an organic rich shale that required tranquil, even stagnant, oxygen-poor water.

A: __[Could enough stagnant water have been available between tsunamis to produce this organic matter?]

--(11j2) The 200 feet of pure coccolith chalks of the Niobrara and the bentonite deposits also require a lot of time. A chalk particle, 2 microns in radius, takes about 80 days to fall through only 300 feet of very still water.


A:

--(11j3) Some of the smaller volcanic ash particles in the bentonites could take even longer to fall through 100 m in water than the coccoliths.
__[Would chalk or ash particles settle quickly if the water were saturated with them?]

A: http://creation.com/can-flood-geology-explain-thick-chalk-beds
- https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_1/j10_1_107-113.pdf

--(11j4) The Dakota formation has numerous borings, relatively pure volcanic ash layers (Lane, 1963, p. 229-256) . If the ash layers occurred during a raging flood, they would have been thoroughly mixed with other sediment.

A: __[Was the ash sealed in by the shale layer above it?]

--(11j5) The black shale with very small particle size requires quiet, tranquil waters for deposition.

A: __[JB says that is false.]

--(11j6) The Ordovician Winnipeg formation is very similar to the Deadwood "suggesting that the Deadwood Sandstone may be a source for the Winnipeg Sandstone" (Bitney, 1983, p. 1330) by local erosion rather than a world wide catastrophe.

A: __[The two sandstones are 145 ft apart vertically. Would the two basal layers have been deposited by successive tsunamis?]

_(11k) Impact Signs vs Flood
The Hell Creek formation is the last Cretaceous deposit. It has sands and shales, with dinosaurs and Cretaceous style mammals. And it contains the famous iridium anomaly from the K/T meteor impact. In 1984, the iridium in a 3 centimeter layer was about 12 nannograms / gram (ng/g) and in the other layers it was undetectable. Just below the iridium anomaly there is a ratio of 1 pollen grain to every fern spore. At the iridium anomaly, the angiosperm pollen practically disappears, the ratio being 100 fern spore to every angiosperm pollen grain, as if the angiosperm plants disappeared (Smit and Van der Kaars, 1984, p. 1177-1179) . Why would a global flood cause fern/pollen and iridium to alter in a way that would mimic an asteroid impact? (Kamo and Krogh, 1995, p. 281-284; Nichols et al., 1986, p. 714-717)

A: __[Maybe there were impacts during the floods.]

_(11l) Fossils of Slow-Growing Trees
- The Fort Union formation is the first Tertiary deposit. It cannot be the flood deposit. It has standing fossilized tree stumps (Hickey, 1977, p. 10) .
The Golden Valley Formation has tree trunk molds. This means that the trees had time to rot away before they were buried by the next layer, meaning that this layer took some time to be deposited. (Hickey, 1977, p. 68-72,90-92,168)

A: __[Didn't the roots break off in tsunamis?]

_(11m) Missing Sediments

--(11m1) There is no sand, or shale [in a sequence], so it is hard to see how this could be the flood deposits.

A: __[Is it because tsunamis likely came from different directions at different times during the cataclysm, picking up & dropping different materials?]

--(11m2) The Devonian Dawson Bay formation is a carbonate which shows evidence of subaerial erosion (Pound, 1988, p. 879; Dunn, 1983, p. 79,85) which can't be created under flood waters.

A: __[Could the limestone have been eroded between tsunamis?]




REFERENCES & NOTES
_11. <<____<Dating in Part 2>
_11a. <<____
_11b1. <<____
_11b2. <<____
_11b3. <<____
_11c. <<____
_11d. <<____
_11e. <<____
_11f1. <<____
_11f2. <<____
_11g1. <<____
_11g2. <<____
_11g3. <<____
_11g4. <<____
_11g5. <<____
_11g6. <<____
_11h. <<____
_11i. <<____
_11i1. <<____
_11i2. <<____
_11i3. <<____
_11i4. <<____
_11i5. <<____
_11i6. <<____
_11i7. <<____
_11i8. <<____
_11j1. <<____
_11j2. <<____
_11j3. <<____
_11j4. <<____
_11j5. <<____
_11j6. <<____
_11k. <<____
_11l. <<____
_11m1. <<____
_11m2. <<____

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]