Flood Question

[AV1611VET]

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



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 withing the water. So, what maximum estimate would you suggest would be the thickness of the flood sediments once receded?

Rick, do you believe ... as do I ... that the Flood waters, along with sediment and other "floaties," were taken off the earth?

It sounds like you're about to make that point.

 

[RickG]

Rick, do you believe ... as do I ... that the Flood waters, along with sediment and other "floaties," were taken off the earth?

It sounds like you're about to make that point.

Nothing left the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing left the earth.

So we're still under five miles of water (less the waters that went back down the holes)?

 

[RickG]

So we're still under five miles of water (less the waters that went back down the holes)?

Which leaves how much sediment deposited by the flood?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

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?

I'd say about a grand canyons worth over 50% of the earth and less over another 25%.

Here, you tell me how much earth was displaced and suspended in the waters when the fountains of the deep opened up?

But it is all where it is supposed to be, in what were once valleys and depressions, only very little on the mountain tops as further weathering moves even more into the valleys. It;s your concept of time which is flawed - not the depth.

Waters rose and land sunk during the flood and others rose afterwards. What you think of as mountains were once ocean floor - and therefore sedimentary rock????? Established by the many marine fossils and corals found on mountain tops.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424338/ocean-basin/285023/Deep-sea-sediments
"The sediment cover in the Pacific basin ranges from 300 to 600 metres (about 1,000 to 2,000 feet) thick, and that in the Atlantic is about 1,000 metres (3,300 feet)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon
"and attains a depth of over a mile (6,093 feet or 1,857 meters)."

But everyone's theories leave out one important fact. The continued deposit of sedimentary layers on a timetable not compatible with your theory of time or depth of water.

Every ruin 1,000 years old or more is buried in layers where they are not kept up for the public.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-HUWYV_5Hvr1tGlfxBiEv8ta2WVV1aVQehwR7Cbx7z1-gL1FYcQ

http://www.canterburytrust.co.uk/catpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rubb03a.jpg

Showing just how incorrect is the belief that this layering takes millions of years (mainstream) and is due only to sediments in water (creationists). Both of you got it wrong. Only the top layering is from post-flood. The dinosaurs went extinct long before man and the animals with him were created. Easily checked just by finding out what the Hebrew word hayah really means.

"And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste, and darkness "became - hayah" upon....."

So that the dinosaurs were created in a time prior to man is not surprising. Nor the fact there have been 5 previous creations and destruction's, with man being the sixth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

And when it goes extinct the 6th time, there will be a 7th creation. But just seeing the 6 sudden appearances of life or the 5 destruction's of it, calls no similarities to mind?

So far you have told me nothing of the history of the earth, the Bible when interpreted correctly, hasn't already told me.

 

[lasthero]

Every ruin 1,000 years old or more is buried in layers where they are not kept up for the public

Then how do you know about them?

 

[mmksparbud]

Interesting question. But how would you go about measuring such a thing? I mean, you're talking about areas that had springs that came up, some with tremendous force, it says the fountains of the deep and the waters of the heavens, so each would have been different in force, some with earthquakes, I would assume. This wasn't just a gentle shower --and it lasted for 40 days--and it took over a year to subside. During that year there would have been all sorts of shifting of the earth, at many different levels. How could any of it possibly be measured?? The layers would have to be different thickness everywhere. I am speaking just as a lay person as I have absolutely no scientific background to answer such a s question---just don't see how anyone could answer it.

 

[[serious]]

I'd say about a grand canyons worth over 50% of the earth and less over another 25%.

Here, you tell me how much earth was displaced and suspended in the waters when the fountains of the deep opened up?

But it is all where it is supposed to be, in what were once valleys and depressions, only very little on the mountain tops as further weathering moves even more into the valleys. It;s your concept of time which is flawed - not the depth.

Waters rose and land sunk during the flood and others rose afterwards. What you think of as mountains were once ocean floor - and therefore sedimentary rock????? Established by the many marine fossils and corals found on mountain tops.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424338/ocean-basin/285023/Deep-sea-sediments
"The sediment cover in the Pacific basin ranges from 300 to 600 metres (about 1,000 to 2,000 feet) thick, and that in the Atlantic is about 1,000 metres (3,300 feet)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon
"and attains a depth of over a mile (6,093 feet or 1,857 meters)."

But everyone's theories leave out one important fact. The continued deposit of sedimentary layers on a timetable not compatible with your theory of time or depth of water.

Every ruin 1,000 years old or more is buried in layers where they are not kept up for the public.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-HUWYV_5Hvr1tGlfxBiEv8ta2WVV1aVQehwR7Cbx7z1-gL1FYcQ

http://www.canterburytrust.co.uk/catpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rubb03a.jpg

Showing just how incorrect is the belief that this layering takes millions of years (mainstream) and is due only to sediments in water (creationists). Both of you got it wrong. Only the top layering is from post-flood. The dinosaurs went extinct long before man and the animals with him were created. Easily checked just by finding out what the Hebrew word hayah really means.

"And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste, and darkness "became - hayah" upon....."

So that the dinosaurs were created in a time prior to man is not surprising. Nor the fact there have been 5 previous creations and destruction's, with man being the sixth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

And when it goes extinct the 6th time, there will be a 7th creation. But just seeing the 6 sudden appearances of life or the 5 destruction's of it, calls no similarities to mind?

So far you have told me nothing of the history of the earth, the Bible when interpreted correctly, hasn't already told me.

hey! we got an actual answer. ok, so about a mile of depth os what you estimate. Drop you bomb Rick.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

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



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?

Also sediments settle in completely different environments, which can be determined by the types of stratification that can be seen, lying one on top of another in a sedimentary column. So you could for instance have desert sediments lying on top of river sediments on top of delta sediments on top of beach sediments on top of deep sea sediments on top of shallow lagoon deposits on so on. Then that column could be bent into a U shape or turned on its side or into zigzags and metamorphosed into different rocks from subsequent tectonic activity. Then those sediments, now lying on their sides and metamorphosed into limestones or gneisses or whatever might be weathered over a very long time to a smooth flat surface and then overlain with another completely different set of horizontal sedimentary layers from different environments. Then the whole thing might get tilted or squashed or stretched again. It's all there below your feet. Sedimentary geology is just another in a long list that makes creationism look daft.

 

[mmksparbud]

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?

So then, how can there be an estimate when no one knows the amount of available sediment at any given point?? Would there be more, or less sediment when the terrain is a jungle, as opposed to a dessert???

 

[RickG]

hey! we got an actual answer. ok, so about a mile of depth os what you estimate. Drop you bomb Rick.

BOOM!
The peak of Mount Everest is 8,848 meters. The 15 cubits (22.5 ft) above the highest mountain is trivial. The point is that the depth of the sediment could not be anywhere near the depth of the water(s), much less that depth. So, lets look at some actual data, provided by the Marine Geophysics and Marine Geology division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas

20,000 meters. That's more than 2 1/2 times the possible depth of the waters.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/sedthick/sedthick.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/sedthick/index.html

And never mind that none of the sediments are of catastrophic flood origin.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then how do you know about them?

We use radar and dig them up.

http://www.geophysical.com/Images/gprdata-cemeterymapping-l.jpg

 

[Justatruthseeker]

BOOM!
The peak of Mount Everest is 8,848 meters. The 15 cubits (22.5 ft) above the highest mountain is trivial. The point is that the depth of the sediment could not be anywhere near the depth of the water(s), much less that depth. So, lets look at some actual data, provided by the Marine Geophysics and Marine Geology division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas

20,000 meters. That's more than 2 1/2 times the possible depth of the waters.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/sedthick/sedthick.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/sedthick/index.html

And never mind that none of the sediments are of catastrophic flood origin.

BOOM - BOOM. Except mount Everest was once the bottom of the sea.

http://climbing.about.com/od/Mount-Everest/a/Geology-Of-Mount-Everest.htm

And does not hold this sediment you claim should have been deposited over the millions of years it was sea bottom - where we would expect sediments, would we not? If Everest was once sea floor - and sedimentation occurs as you claim, then why is not mount Everest almost entirely sediment? Apparently even it's rising left the sedimentary layers alone, else extinct sea life would not be found on the very top of it, and we wont even consider the flood into the equation.

So we can discount any claims of sedimentary processes proposed by evolutionists. The real world observations falsifies your assumptions about those sedimentary processes. All you just did is cast doubt on your own beliefs, although I expect you are too dogmatic in your "beliefs" to admit it.

So after millions of years almost no sediments were deposited on the ocean floor where Everest once was. But you ignore this when it comes time to explain the vast areas of sediments all piled up together, including the life trapped and jumbled up inside it, which would never occur under normal sedimentary processes.

Ostrich theory at work again.

 

[lasthero]

We use radar and dig them up.

http://www.geophysical.com/Images/gprdata-cemeterymapping-l.jpg

But you said they weren't open to the public.

 

[RickG]

BOOM - BOOM. Except mount Everest was once the bottom of the sea.

Yes it was, but not 4,500 years ago. But nevertheless, you are missing the point. I am providing a maximum sea depth from which suspended sediment can be deposited. By citing Mount Everest as the high point, that is a plus for your side, providing a source for more sedimentation.

And does not hold this sediment you claim should have been deposited over the millions of years it was sea bottom - where we would expect sediments, would we not? If Everest was once sea floor - and sedimentation occurs as you claim, then why is not mount Everest almost entirely sediment? Apparently even it's rising left the sedimentary layers alone, else extinct sea life would not be found on the very top of it, and we wont even consider the flood into the equation.

You seem to be off on a tangent, I'm not suggesting that Mount Everest is sediment deposited by the flood. As for extinct sea life, yup, there certainly is as those sediments are of Cambrian and Ordovician age.
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/121/3-4/323.short

So we can discount any claims of sedimentary processes proposed by evolutionists. The real world observations falsifies your assumptions about those sedimentary processes. All you just did is cast doubt on your own beliefs, although I expect you are too dogmatic in your "beliefs" to admit it.

Evolutionists have nothing to do with sedimentology, which is a specific discipline within the greater field of geology, not evolution.

So after millions of years almost no sediments were deposited on the ocean floor where Everest once was.

What on earth are you talking about? Where Everest once was? Everest is a result of the Indian Sub-continent colliding with the Euro-Asian Continent some 60 ma.

But you ignore this when it comes time to explain the vast areas of sediments all piled up together, including the life trapped and jumbled up inside it, which would never occur under normal sedimentary processes.

Really? And you studied Sedimentology at what accredited institution of higher learning? Hmmmmm......I.....can't.....hear.....youuuuuuuu.

Now, how about dispensing with the obfuscation and discuss the topic of this thread. Why did you ignore my statement in my previous post where I showed that sedimentary deposits exceed the highest possible deposits left by said flood by more than 2 1/2 times.

 

[[serious]]

BOOM - BOOM. Except mount Everest was once the bottom of the sea.

http://climbing.about.com/od/Mount-Everest/a/Geology-Of-Mount-Everest.htm

And does not hold this sediment you claim should have been deposited over the millions of years it was sea bottom - where we would expect sediments, would we not? If Everest was once sea floor - and sedimentation occurs as you claim, then why is not mount Everest almost entirely sediment? Apparently even it's rising left the sedimentary layers alone, else extinct sea life would not be found on the very top of it, and we wont even consider the flood into the equation.

So we can discount any claims of sedimentary processes proposed by evolutionists. The real world observations falsifies your assumptions about those sedimentary processes. All you just did is cast doubt on your own beliefs, although I expect you are too dogmatic in your "beliefs" to admit it.

So after millions of years almost no sediments were deposited on the ocean floor where Everest once was. But you ignore this when it comes time to explain the vast areas of sediments all piled up together, including the life trapped and jumbled up inside it, which would never occur under normal sedimentary processes.

Ostrich theory at work again.

You are just saying stuff unrelated to the point again.

The origins of any specific mountain is irrelevant to the height of mountains generally as compared with the depth of sediment layers.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes it was, but not 4,500 years ago.
But nevertheless, you are missing the point. I am providing a maximum sea depth from which suspended sediment can be deposited. By citing Mount Everest as the high point, that is a plus for your side, providing a source for more sedimentation.

No, you miss the point - you are providing more water - not more sedimentation. The waters of the deep were opened up.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...rwater-ocean-trapped-beneath-earths-crust.htm

Yet you expect no more sediment (or allow none) in a geological worldwide catastrophic event than what is observed today when those waters of the deep are back where they began. Might as well expect me to believe when that meteor (or comet) struck earth and extincted the dinosaurs, they didn't all get drowned in a flood too, being in sedimentary rock, because that much sediment couldn't possibly have happened by the observed rate today. Such a strawman you bring.

You seem to be off on a tangent, I'm not suggesting that Mount Everest is sediment deposited by the flood. As for extinct sea life, yup, there certainly is as those sediments are of Cambrian and Ordovician age.
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/121/3-4/323.short

You mean claims of age based upon those clams used for dating - that are no different than one today, except fossilized?

Fossil clam of the Ordovician age
Modern clam.

Evolutionists have nothing to do with sedimentology, which is a specific discipline within the greater field of geology, not evolution.

I know, because if they followed it instead of ignoring it, they would realize that in the claimed 95 million years since the dinosaurs existed, the amount of sediment we see (which the dinosaurs are in) could not have went by natural processes. Your own arguments defeat you, by refusing to consider that worldwide catastrophic event, but you refuse to see.

What on earth are you talking about? Where Everest once was? Everest is a result of the Indian Sub-continent colliding with the Euro-Asian Continent some 60 ma.

So you claim - date wise - yet despite it being an ocean for how many billions before that from which life arose? It has only a shallow sediment deposit. Imagine that.

Really? And you studied Sedimentology at what accredited institution of higher learning? Hmmmmm......I.....can't.....hear.....youuuuuuuu.

Now, how about dispensing with the obfuscation and discuss the topic of this thread. Why did you ignore my statement in my previous post where I showed that sedimentary deposits exceed the highest possible deposits left by said flood by more than 2 1/2 times.

And yet I am not the one claiming life took billions of years evolving in a primordial ocean depositing sediments all that time, then when the ground rises, merely some 60 mya, it is miraculously free of those very layers of sediment required by those vast ages of time. So what you really showed, is that sediments fall far below those vast times required - and that only catastrophic events can account for the amount of sedimentation observed where those ancient oceans were not.

Before they were the continents - according to you - they were the birthing pools for the life we came from over hundreds of millions of years. Then the land rises - and suddenly what should all be sedimentary rock - is suddenly not. I'm not sure you understand how any of the continents were formed.

 

[RickG]

No, you miss the point - you are providing more water - not more sedimentation. The waters of the deep were opened up.

Again, you are missing the whole point. We know how much sedimentation there is. It doesn't matter how much you I give you, and I am trying to give you as much as possible which will give you more sedimentation. Even at that there is more than two and a half times the amount of sedimentation that there is water.

You mean claims of age based upon those clams used for dating - that are no different than one today, except fossilized?

Fossil clam of the Ordovician age
Modern clam.

You present two problems there. (1) You present two pictures of clams with absolutely no documentation, not to mention that they are completely irrelevant. (2) A clam of Ordivician age would not be dated directly as clams that are
40,000 years or less can be with radiocarbon dating. Beyond that the sediment in which they are contained are dated, not fossils themselves.

I know, because if they followed it instead of ignoring it, they would realize that in the claimed 95 million years since the dinosaurs existed, the amount of sediment we see (which the dinosaurs are in) could not have went by natural processes. Your own arguments defeat you, by refusing to consider that worldwide catastrophic event, but you refuse to see.

Now you are making stuff up. Again, where did you study sedimentology?

So you claim - date wise - yet despite it being an ocean for how many billions before that from which life arose? It has only a shallow sediment deposit. Imagine that.

You are not making a bit of sense and are totally off topic.

And yet I am not the one claiming life took billions of years evolving in a primordial ocean depositing sediments all that time, then when the ground rises, merely some 60 mya, it is miraculously free of those very layers of sediment required by those vast ages of time. So what you really showed, is that sediments fall far below those vast times required - and that only catastrophic events can account for the amount of sedimentation observed where those ancient oceans were not.

I'm not either, this topic is not about evolution. Please get back on topic.

Before they were the continents - according to you - they were the birthing pools for the life we came from over hundreds of millions of years. Then the land rises - and suddenly what should all be sedimentary rock - is suddenly not.

I've make no such claim. And again please get back on topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

RickG, a correction on modern clams, very often you can't date modern clams with C14 dating due to the reservoir effect. They will have a false "old" age. Of course that age is still less than 60,000 years.

http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

The scriptures give absolutely no details about flood sedimentation amounts or levels.
Such assumptions are assuming a "natural" flood, which the scriptures insist it was not.
Such imaginations are just setting up straw men to push over.