Flood Question

[RickG]

The YEC literature describes sedimentary deposits of the of the Geologic column as a result of Noah's flood.

The subject, and my question for this thread, is for those who subscribe to this flood geology to give me your estimate of the maximum thickness of sedimentary deposits left by the flood.

 

[[serious]]

From last time:

I'll take a crack at it. I'm going to assume an average turbidity of flood waters of 100 mg/l. I got this from looking up what a high turbidity for fish ponds is and going with the the too high value. If you are dealing with levels that figure higher than that and the fish are going to die off. (I know, there are other things that would kill off fish in a global flood, but since we still have fish, let's put the others to the side and just look at suspended particulates not killing fish)

Now, next step, let's look at what kind of volume we are talking about from those suspended solids. Let's assume an average density of 2.5 g/cm3 assuming that limestone is going to be typical of such sediment. Now, to play with units until we get depth of sediment per depth of water

100 mg/l = .1 g/l = .0001 g sediment / cm3 water
Divide that by 2.5 g sediment / cm3 sediment
.0001 / 2.5 = 0.00004 cm3 sediment / cm3 water

but we want depth to depth, so let's take the cube root of that and we get

0.0342 units of sediment per unit of water.

Now, let's call the flood depth 9000 m above sea level. That means at sea level, we should find about 300 m of sediment with less thickness higher above sea level, and more below. At the Mariana trench, we would be looking at about 19000 m total depth, or about 650 m of sediment.

We never did get an actual number from the YECs, did we?

I bet this time they say 12 miles of sediments, because reasons!

 

[RickG]

From last time:

We never did get an actual number from the YECs, did we?

That's why I though I would revive the discussion. YECs seem to have a lot of trouble answering a direct question.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The YEC literature describes sedimentary deposits of the of the Geologic column as a result of Noah's flood.

The subject, and my question for this thread, is for those who subscribe to this flood geology to give me your estimate of the maximum thickness of sedimentary deposits left by the flood.

About 75% of the earth's surface, in layers up to thousands of meters thick.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Rock_(geology)

Which is as we would expect being they were deposited by a worldwide flood on top of what already existed.

 

[RickG]

About 75% of the earth's surface, in layers up to thousands of meters thick.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Rock_(geology)

Which is as we would expect being they were deposited by a worldwide flood on top of what already existed.

I'm looking for a figure. For example, according to the Genesis account the flood was 15 cubits over the highest mountain. What would that be in feet or meters?

 

[Zosimus]

I'm looking for a figure. For example, according to the Genesis account the flood was 15 cubits over the highest mountain. What would that be in feet or meters?

It's impossible to know because no one knows how high the mountains were at that point, nor is the measure of a cubit (the length of your forearm) will be different from person to person.

 

[RickG]

It's impossible to know because no one knows how high the mountains were at that point, nor is the measure of a cubit (the length of your forearm) will be different from person to person.

How about giving your maximum number. I wouldn't want you to under estimate it.

 

[Zosimus]

How about giving your maximum number. I wouldn't want you to under estimate it.

My maximum number? I am capable of managing very large numbers using exponential notation. I am not aware of a maximum number. Unless you mean that infinity is, in a sense, the maximum number. Personally, however, I have always considered infinity to be more of a concept than a number. Additionally, some infinities are larger than others.

 

[RickG]

My maximum number? I am capable of managing very large numbers using exponential notation. I am not aware of a maximum number. Unless you mean that infinity is, in a sense, the maximum number. Personally, however, I have always considered infinity to be more of a concept than a number. Additionally, some infinities are larger than others.

It's not that hard of a question. How thick would we expect the sediment left by the flood to be?

 

[[serious]]

My maximum number? I am capable of managing very large numbers using exponential notation. I am not aware of a maximum number. Unless you mean that infinity is, in a sense, the maximum number. Personally, however, I have always considered infinity to be more of a concept than a number. Additionally, some infinities are larger than others.

Well, i assume we can also limit it to such a thickness so that earth does not gravitationally collapse into a black hole.

We can probably also say that it is smaller than the radius of earth, since, you know, the earth is earth sized.

 

[RickG]

Still no serious estimates?

 

[crjmurray]

Still no serious estimates?

Of course not. If you get any responders they'll just derail the thread with troll posts until your thread gets shut down for flaming.

 

[Oafman]

You would see great variation in the thickness of deposits, given that is what we see from smaller floods.

There is of course no evidence of that in the geological record. But I don't suppose such details will concern the Noahists (I made up a word!)

 

[RickG]

You would see great variation in the thickness of deposits, given that is what we see from smaller floods.

That would be true.

There is of course no evidence of that in the geological record. But I don't suppose such details will concern the Noahists (I made up a word!)

Well, with specific attention to this thread it is the geologic record that I am presenting, and oddly enough, from the floodsters point of view. I want a description of what is and what is not considered flood sediment with particular attention to the maximum thickness those flood sediments could be.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know what you're asking for, but at the risk of hearing someone whine about trolling or derailing, I'll venture my best guess.

I want a description of what is and what is not considered flood sediment ...

What is: Sediment that was shifted around, dissolved, or pocketed here and there during the Flood.

What is not: Sediment that is found where sediment is found today ... after the Flood; plus or minus the sediment dragged around during the continental breakup that occurred shortly after the Flood.

Not to mention any sediment that God may have used when He performed some miracle later on; such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of Egypt, and dropping various rocks and stones on the enemies of Israel.

... with particular attention to the maximum thickness those flood sediments could be.

Assuming it was taken elsewhere in the universe, I doubt maximum thickness can be ascertained.

(Ya ... catastrophism is a bummer, isn't it? It plays havoc on determining exact details, doesn't it?)

 

[RickG]

I don't know what you're asking for, but at the risk of hearing someone whine about trolling or derailing, I'll venture my best guess.

I don't know how to put it any clearer. What do you recognize as sediment deposited by the flood and what is the thickness of that sediment?

What is: Sediment that was shifted around, dissolved, or pocketed here and there during the Flood.

I'm looking for something more specific; i.e., are the sediment layers in the Grand Canyon from the flood? How about other formations? Deposited from the flood or not.

What is not: Sediment that is found where sediment is found today ... after the Flood; plus or minus the sediment dragged around during the continental breakup that occurred shortly after the Flood.

If you can't tell what is from said flood and what is not, then how can you claim any of it is flood sediment?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can't tell what is from said flood and what is not, then how can you claim any of it is flood sediment?

Okay ... I see what you're asking now (I think).

This is YEC stuff.

I'll bow out, but for the record, I believe all (or most) of the sediment is elsewhere in the solar system.

 

[RickG]

Okay ... I see what you're asking now (I think).

This is YEC stuff.

Yes it is, as stated in the OP.

I'll bow out, but for the record, I believe all (or most) of the sediment is elsewhere in the solar system.

Thus validating crjmurray's coment.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm looking for a figure. For example, according to the Genesis account the flood was 15 cubits over the highest mountain. What would that be in feet or meters?

No one knows - depth of water has nothing to do with sedimentation - only the amount of sediments suspended within the water. But then that's why mountains have less sedimentation than valleys, sediments tend to settle in the depressions.
Let's just say extremely deep in some places - and shallow in others.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TB__pKHsa...ormity+from+the+South+Rim+of+Grand+Canyon.jpg

But maybe a search would give you some idea of it's overall depth????

https://www.google.com/search?q=sed...a=X&ei=OkRzVa3AIoSjgwS6vIDQBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

The point of your question being what, since we have an entire grand canyon worth of sedimentation over most of the earth's non-sedimentary rock? Exactly where flood water would deposit it, in what was then depressions. Did you expect to find more on mountain tops than what were then even deeper valleys?

 

[RickG]

No one knows - depth of water has nothing to do with sedimentation - only the amount of sediments suspended within the water.

You are kind of making my point for me. You are getting close.

The point of your question being what, since we have an entire grand canyon worth of sedimentation over most of the earth's non-sedimentary rock? Exactly where flood water would deposit it, in what was then depressions. Did you expect to find more on mountain tops than what were then even deeper valleys?

Taking from the bible that the waters were 15 cubits over the highest mountains, what do you think could be the thickest amount of flood sediments. And that actually is trivial because a cubit is only roughly 1.5 feet, or 22.5 ft over the highest land at the time of the flood. And just so we come up with a maximum figure, Mount Everest is 29,029 ft., so we have a total of around 29,051.5 ft.. Taking into account what you said, it depends upon the amount of sediment suspended within the water. So, what maximum estimate would you suggest would be the thickness of the flood sediments once receded?