Hydrological Sorting and the Fossil Record

[laptoppop]

Their examples seem to rely on particles sorting themselves by sliding down a slope, either of a sand pile or the sides of a dropping funnel.

The article points to layering in the pyroclastic flow from Mt St Helens, but we are talking about a flood not aerial deposition and clay particles not ash.

What physical constraints resulted in the layering of vast beds of shale? There are no sloping walls. The clay particles aren't rolling over each other like the ones in the funnel or in pyroclastic flows, the particles are surrounded and isolated from each other by water until they reach the bottom.

What slowed the clay bearing water down enough for the clay particles to settle out? What force were able to produce changes in direction of water flow or composition of the sediment suspension across vast areas to give layering, yet with these forces not disturbing the very calm conditions needed for particles smaller than 0.006mm to settle out?

Please look at the research a little bit more closely. What you'll find is that the sorting was duplicated in both dry conditions and using hydrodeposition. The thing that is especially interesting is that they laminations that are observed match those of the original strata.

 

[laptoppop]

Thanks Shernren, for taking the time to think about the math of the process involved in creating shale-- but you continue to make an assumption that I disagree with. Using the rates of deposition or settling of fine particles in calm water is the wrong method. It is true for layers on the surface of a formation, but not in the middle.

It is *easily* demonstrated that this is not the only method for shales to form. When I did an experiment with my son in our yard using a mixture of soil, chalk, fine rocks, etc. in a 10 gallon aquarium, we saw a fine layer settle out on the surface over time. However, there were also a number of fine layers, some relatively thick in the midst of the other layers composed of coarser material.

I suggest, for example, that you consider turbidity currents.

 

[Assyrian]

Please look at the research a little bit more closely. What you'll find is that the sorting was duplicated in both dry conditions and using hydrodeposition. The thing that is especially interesting is that they laminations that are observed match those of the original strata.

When you have some sort of sloping walls. I read it. My question was how you do it without a container.

I think your only hope for getting all that sediment into the area in the time allowed is with turbidity currents, but these are catastrophic events, underwater avalanches, that leave deep gouges in the area they bulldoze through and I think would leave pretty distinctive flow patterns, not the flat undisturbed strata we find with shale. I wonder how any layering in a turbidity deposit would compare with shale.

 

[laptoppop]

If the Lewis overthrust was not caused by the supposedly "older" layers sliding over the "younger" ones -- then how was it made? Antigravity floating the huge formation over the other?

Out of order strata are actually fairly common - and each must be explained in a TOE context. However, the Lewis one is a good one to focus on because of its extent and size.

The out of order formation can be up to 3 miles in thickness. But lets take an area which is "only" 1000 feet thick. How many megatons of material would that represent? What is the weight of that material on the strata below? What kind of pressures would we see?

Shale is fragile -- we would expect some deformation just based on the weight of the upper strata. Also, the flood model has no problem with post flood strata movement. It does look for signs of such movement.

 

[laptoppop]

In reading this claim, I've seen the repeated claim that "the flood is very complex and the changing conditions could have easily laid down all the strata." So I'm interested...laptoppop, what, in your opinion, would falsilfy the flood model?

This is an excellent point and one that has been raised before-- and one that I do not currently have a full satisfactory answer for.

Because of the dynamics predicted by a flood, especially a global one, an extremely wide range of effects are to be expected. To *falsify* the flood model, one has to demonstrate that there is absolutely no way that a given formation could be formed. Given the flexibility of the model, it is difficult to do that -- it probably feels a bit like trying to get a firm grip on slippery soap.

But then again -- if the flood model can explain the physical evidence that we have..... why reject it?

Indeed -- if the flood model is superiour at predicting that there will be out of order strata, if it has no problems with strata with tight bending with no signs of cracking (caused by strata folding while the strata is still wet and malleable), if it predicts the formation of gigantic strata layers, if it predicts that we will not see the same strata everywhere (the geologic column is a bit of a myth - virtually all sites have only a portion of the column)....... why reject it?

 

[Assyrian]

Creationists are happy with 'runaway plate tectonics' involving continents but a three mile thick layer is out of the question without antigravity?

 

[laptoppop]

When you have some sort of sloping walls. I read it. My question was how you do it without a container.

I think your only hope for getting all that sediment into the area in the time allowed is with turbidity currents, but these are catastrophic events, underwater avalanches, that leave deep gouges in the area they bulldoze through and I think would leave pretty distinctive flow patterns, not the flat undisturbed strata we find with shale. I wonder how any layering in a turbidity deposit would compare with shale.

There are other mechanisms, and it quickly goes beyond my knowledge -- but like I said, I saw them form in a quick little experiement in my own yard -- they do not require calm water to form.

Some of Berthaults experiments have been conducted using large tanks as well -- but this points up a basic problem for creationists -- funding. The funding for creationist research is extremely tiny, and large scale experiments are expensive. For computer modeling of the conditions of the flood, for example, I know of only one small cluster-based supercomputer (if it is even fair to call it that) that is able to even trying to work on pieces of the problem.

 

[laptoppop]

By the way -- in response to the thought of the Lewis formation floating over the "younger" rocks -- http://icr.org/article/212/

Of course, once again, the size of the formation makes this very difficult as well.

 

[random_guy]

There are other mechanisms, and it quickly goes beyond my knowledge -- but like I said, I saw them form in a quick little experiement in my own yard -- they do not require calm water to form.

Some of Berthaults experiments have been conducted using large tanks as well -- but this points up a basic problem for creationists -- funding. The funding for creationist research is extremely tiny, and large scale experiments are expensive. For computer modeling of the conditions of the flood, for example, I know of only one small cluster-based supercomputer (if it is even fair to call it that) that is able to even trying to work on pieces of the problem.

But didn't AiG or ICR or some ministry spend $25 million on building a museum? It seems funding wouldn't be that big of an issue once a single scientific paper was published on supporting the Flood. For example, as a graduate student, I am funded through NSF, and my grant is only ~$30k a year. That's a drop in a bucket compared to how much money Creationists spend doing political work over scientific work. If they were truly interested in science, they would fund graduate students from their universities to do science work. Graduate students are the cheapest form of research labor, but they do produce scientific papers. Not only that, graduate students do have access to cluster-based supercomputers. For example, if I needed it, I can apply to use my school's cluster just by filling out a form stating use, how long, etc... and I'll get scheduled time.

In fact, the biggest problem is you don't jump straight into using a supercomputer or building a tank or try to build a physical structure. The first step is always a mathematical model. This helps cut down building something that will already be proven false. Is there any kind of mathematical model in existence for the Flood?

 

[laptoppop]

There are models for various parts of the flood, for example currents flowing over the continents, etc. The problem with modeling the entire flood is one of complexity and number of variables. This is of course, similar to the problems with global weather prediction. You can find more information on the ICR.org site, as you already know.

There is also the problem of the number of assumptions. Because we do not know the exact composition of the pre-diluvian world, there are lots of things to try.

In terms of museums versus research -- museums actually help *fund* the research, as well as promote and explain the principles involved to a wider body of people. Ultimately, it is not just raw investigation that is important - it is reaching the hearts and minds of people. Each organization has to make their own decisions about how to best allocate funds. There are certainly plenty of museums of "natural history" supporting the TOE.

 

[random_guy]

There are models for various parts of the flood, for example currents flowing over the continents, etc. The problem with modeling the entire flood is one of complexity and number of variables. This is of course, similar to the problems with global weather prediction. You can find more information on the ICR.org site, as you already know.

But there really isn't global weather prediction, there's localized weather prediction, and there's a model for that with lots of math. While it may only be able to predict out to 5 days, it works pretty well. Why not have localized models for the global Flood? Also, there's global climate prediction, and that also started from a mathematical model (very complex, but also exists). Why not have a global model, also? Plus, everyone knows that you start off with a simple model, then add complexitities on. Is there actually any model with math behind it?

There is also the problem of the number of assumptions. Because we do not know the exact composition of the pre-diluvian world, there are lots of things to try.

Just because we don't know the exact composition doesn't mean that we can't make up a model to study it. If we find errors in our model that doesn't match up with what we see, that means the assumptions are incorrect and we need to revise the model. It's almost as if you're saying that it's impossible to model the Flood, and it's impossible to falsify the Flood since we don't know everything about the pre-diluvian world.

In terms of museums versus research -- museums actually help *fund* the research, as well as promote and explain the principles involved to a wider body of people. Ultimately, it is not just raw investigation that is important - it is reaching the hearts and minds of people. Each organization has to make their own decisions about how to best allocate funds. There are certainly plenty of museums of "natural history" supporting the TOE.

Museums may help fund the research, but one way to get guarenteed funding is start research and publish a paper in a scientific journal. Explaining principles does no good if the principles are wrong in the first place. Without any research, how do you know if the principles are correct? The hearts and minds bit seems more like a political movement more than a scientific movement. Of course there's plenty of museums of natural history supporting ToE, but that's because the ToE is scientific, the principles have been studied, and so scientifically accurate exhibits can be placed on display. Creationists museums are hand waves, ad hoc explanations, and fluff without any research behind them.

 

[Assyrian]

But there really isn't global weather prediction, there's localized weather prediction, and there's a model for that with lots of math. While it may only be able to predict out to 5 days, it works pretty well. Why not have localized models for the global Flood? Also, there's global climate prediction, and that also started from a mathematical model (very complex, but also exists). Why not have a global model, also? Plus, everyone knows that you start off with a simple model, then add complexitities on. Is there actually any model with math behind it?

It think a big problem is that once the highest mountains are covered with 15 cubits of water, the flood currents are free to wander across the face of the planet, much like the weather fronts, highs and depressions of our global weather system. You would not get the build up of regular layers in one place that deposition in a shallow sea would produce, instead you should be able to track a single layer of deposition with the same chemical signature as the water bearing that particular sediment moves with the currents of the world ocean. Wales may have a recurrent pattern of wet and dry weather, emphasis on the wet. But is we look at a particular shower it starts in the Atlantic, comes in over Wales and works its way North East across the UK.

You should be able to build up a complete picture layers by layer of the entire history of the flood as various bodies of water move around the planet. Of course you can't.

 

[shernren]

Thanks Shernren, for taking the time to think about the math of the process involved in creating shale-- but you continue to make an assumption that I disagree with. Using the rates of deposition or settling of fine particles in calm water is the wrong method. It is true for layers on the surface of a formation, but not in the middle.

It is *easily* demonstrated that this is not the only method for shales to form. When I did an experiment with my son in our yard using a mixture of soil, chalk, fine rocks, etc. in a 10 gallon aquarium, we saw a fine layer settle out on the surface over time. However, there were also a number of fine layers, some relatively thick in the midst of the other layers composed of coarser material.

I suggest, for example, that you consider turbidity currents.

I'm assuming that you managed to precipitate out 2,500 meters of sediment in 200 days? Or roughly half a meter an hour? Basic fluid mechanics state that particles will take longer to settle out of moving water than out of still water.

 

[shernren]

In terms of museums versus research -- museums actually help *fund* the research, as well as promote and explain the principles involved to a wider body of people. Ultimately, it is not just raw investigation that is important - it is reaching the hearts and minds of people. Each organization has to make their own decisions about how to best allocate funds. There are certainly plenty of museums of "natural history" supporting the TOE.

The problem is that no other science in modern history has ever had to reach the public to be successful. Did Einstein have to make publicity stunts to get relativity promoted? Did Schrodinger have to make little cartoons of the wave equation? Did Rutherford and co. need to fight courtroom battles to get radioactivity into textbooks? Did Wegener have to ask for donations from the public and open a $27 million museum to plate tectonics?

"There is a materialistic bias among people, so these analogies don't hold!" Fine, but the question still remains: why reach the non-science crowd? After all, it is precisely those people who may not possess the aptitude required to distinguish between competing interpretations of data. Science trickles down to the masses only after it has convinced the scientists. "Well, the scientists are materialistically biased too!" Firstly, this smacks of a conspiracy theory - "if we have no evidence for our case this means that someone is covering it up!" Secondly, scientists are always looking for research grants, and it would be extremely easy to pay a Christian scientist a certain amount of money and ask him or her to replicate some creationist results. "But those Christian scientists would then be persecuted!" And yet creation science claims to have gotten papers into refereed scientific journals, so this "persecution" isn't really too severe, is it?

The fact that creation science is spending so much to reach the masses shows that it is not confident of converting the scientists - and that shows that it isn't really science.

 

[laptoppop]

Creationists are happy with 'runaway plate tectonics' involving continents but a three mile thick layer is out of the question without antigravity?

No, not at all. But a three mile thick rock layer moving over the top of another especially fragile layer should leave extensive damage.

 

[laptoppop]

It think a big problem is that once the highest mountains are covered with 15 cubits of water, the flood currents are free to wander across the face of the planet, much like the weather fronts, highs and depressions of our global weather system. You would not get the build up of regular layers in one place that deposition in a shallow sea would produce, instead you should be able to track a single layer of deposition with the same chemical signature as the water bearing that particular sediment moves with the currents of the world ocean. Wales may have a recurrent pattern of wet and dry weather, emphasis on the wet. But is we look at a particular shower it starts in the Atlantic, comes in over Wales and works its way North East across the UK.

You should be able to build up a complete picture layers by layer of the entire history of the flood as various bodies of water move around the planet. Of course you can't.

This is an overly simplistic view. We only have basic models of current ocean currents, etc. with new surprises happening fairly often and we have some idea of what the sea floor looks like. Modeling an unknown terrain is much more difficult.

That is not to say that it is not being studied and worked on - just that it is a HUGE set of projects, not just a minor little task.

And, once again, I need to repeat -- you must get away from thinking of the flood as one uniform little event. Even local floods are not uniform events - there is NO reason to assume that a global flood would be more uniform -- in fact it should be expected to have a much greater variety.

Yes, the Scriptures talk about the highest peaks (THEN) being covered. We only have theories about how high that really is. We currently believe that there was major uplifting, especially later in the process. We do know that places like the top of Mt. Everest were underwater at one point - we just don't know how high they were at the time.

 

[laptoppop]

I'm assuming that you managed to precipitate out 2,500 meters of sediment in 200 days? Or roughly half a meter an hour? Basic fluid mechanics state that particles will take longer to settle out of moving water than out of still water.

Nope. Consider supersaturates. Consider turbidity currents. Again, you are insisting on using a calm water model which is not the only mechanism involved.

 

[laptoppop]

The problem is that no other science in modern history has ever had to reach the public to be successful. Did Einstein have to make publicity stunts to get relativity promoted? Did Schrodinger have to make little cartoons of the wave equation? Did Rutherford and co. need to fight courtroom battles to get radioactivity into textbooks? Did Wegener have to ask for donations from the public and open a $27 million museum to plate tectonics?

"There is a materialistic bias among people, so these analogies don't hold!" Fine, but the question still remains: why reach the non-science crowd? After all, it is precisely those people who may not possess the aptitude required to distinguish between competing interpretations of data. Science trickles down to the masses only after it has convinced the scientists. "Well, the scientists are materialistically biased too!" Firstly, this smacks of a conspiracy theory - "if we have no evidence for our case this means that someone is covering it up!" Secondly, scientists are always looking for research grants, and it would be extremely easy to pay a Christian scientist a certain amount of money and ask him or her to replicate some creationist results. "But those Christian scientists would then be persecuted!" And yet creation science claims to have gotten papers into refereed scientific journals, so this "persecution" isn't really too severe, is it?

The fact that creation science is spending so much to reach the masses shows that it is not confident of converting the scientists - and that shows that it isn't really science.

The reason to reach the non-science crowd is that there are more of them than the science crowd. It is a matter of trying to be good stewards with funds. Fortunately, I'm not in charge of any of these kind of funds, so its not something I have to defend -- but I can understand why they would do it. However, it does not follow that there is any hesitancy or concern about things not passing scientific muster -- its just that there are extremely limited funds, and good people are trying to do the best with them. You might choose a different allocation -- fine. Please feel free to fund some relevant experiments!

 

[Mallon]

Nope. Consider supersaturates. Consider turbidity currents. Again, you are insisting on using a calm water model which is not the only mechanism involved.

I would be careful about invoking turbidites to support your flood claims. Turbidites are characterized by fining-upwards sequences, which is reversed many thousands of times in the geological record (Palaeozoic-Mesozoic included). Thus, invoking turbite flows to account for the Flood sediments won't work.
But I guess all that can be accounted for by just saying the global flood was "complex."

 

[laptoppop]

(showing my ignorance) -- what do you mean a "fining-upwards" sequence?

In a flood, there are lots of different types of flows (yes, its complex <grin>). Landslides, both above and below water, various types of saturates, etc. Its too simplistic to assume only a calm water model of deposition.

Again, I know that shale is no problem for hydrodeposition because I saw fine grain layers form extremely rapidly as well as slow speed deposition in my simple experiment that anyone here can repeat anytime. I may not have the right terms for the mechanisms, or even understand all the variables, but I know it works.