Sediments left by Noah's Flood

[RickG]

Nearly all of the YEC literature describes all sedimentary deposits as a result of Noah's flood.

I would like for those who subscribe to this flood geology to give me your estimate of the maximum thickness of sedimentary deposits left by the flood.

 

[juvenissun]

Nearly all of the YEC literature describes all sedimentary deposits as a result of Noah's flood.

I would like for those who subscribe to this flood geology to give me your estimate of the maximum thickness of sedimentary deposits left by the flood.

We do not really know. But my imagination would be from 0 to 3000 meters. So if you only want to know the max, then you may use the 3000 meters number.

 

[RickG]

We do not really know. But my imagination would be from 0 to 3000 meters. So if you only want to know the max, then you may use the 3000 meters number.

Interesting, may I ask where you arrive at the 3000 meter number? 3000 meters is just short of 2 miles.

 

[hurste1951]

My vote is for 1.7 million trillion meters (with most of them in the Spirit Realm).

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[RickG]

Well Fludsters, where art thou?

 

[EternalDragon]

Nearly all of the YEC literature describes all sedimentary deposits as a result of Noah's flood.

I would like for those who subscribe to this flood geology to give me your estimate of the maximum thickness of sedimentary deposits left by the flood.

If you already know what the thickness of current sediment layers
are, why are you asking? Also this was a one time event that we are
given little detail about so it would be impossible to reconstruct all the
factors.

 

[RickG]

If you already know what the thickness of current sediment layers
are, why are you asking? Also this was a one time event that we are
given little detail about so it would be impossible to reconstruct all the
factors.

It's not that difficult of a question ED. Fludsters claim the sediment layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited by the flood. How deep is the Grand Canyon? Take it from there.

 

[hurste1951]

If you already know what the thickness of current sediment layers
are, why are you asking? Also this was a one time event that we are
given little detail about so it would be impossible to reconstruct all the
factors.

Interestingly enough, geologists would likely be able to identify quite clearly a global flood layer that was contemporaneous across the globe!

That's the danger for people who wish to espouse global flood like the Noachian flood. Many of them don't know how geologists actually operate and think that if they just mush up the idea in their imaginations that no scientist could ever tell them otherwise.

A global flood layer, even of a few feet thick would be identifiable and pretty clearly so.

Take for instance the extinction of the dinosaurs. The K-T boundary as it is often called shows up as a relatively thin band or a break in the geologic record that is of actually reasonably short duration. It occurs as an anomaly in the amount of the element Iridium and the sudden elimination of a huge number of animal fossils across that little boundary.

Even more detailed: floods tend to leave very specific features in sediments. Scientists look at flood deposits all the time, albeit localized floods but floods nonetheless.

 

[dad]

It's not that difficult of a question ED. Fludsters claim the sediment layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited by the flood. How deep is the Grand Canyon? Take it from there.

The flood was just one year. I suspect that the old line ideas that the flood caused all the layers are fading, and out dated.

Even many years ago, Walt Brown posited that the Grand Canyon was the result of post flood activity.

 

[hurste1951]

Even many years ago, Walt Brown posited that the Grand Canyon was the result of post flood activity.

So "post flood" would also have to be DRAMATICALLY different physics too! To carve through thousands of feet of rock including some pretty hard stones especially lower down in just a few thousand years would be unthinkable using modern physics.

When did the "Different State Past" change to the same physics we have today?

 

[RickG]

The flood was just one year. I suspect that the old line ideas that the flood caused all the layers are fading, and out dated.

Even many years ago, Walt Brown posited that the Grand Canyon was the result of post flood activity.

From what I read in the creationist literature concerning the flood, they don't agree with Dr. Brown, who BTW is an engineer, not a sedimentologist. Nevertheless, this is not a GC specific thread at all, I only mentioned because it is the most popular YEC claim as verification for the flood. Let me rephrase the question. What is the thickest layer of sediment anywhere in the world that we would expect deposited from the flood?

 

[RickG]

So "post flood" would also have to be DRAMATICALLY different physics too! To carve through thousands of feet of rock including some pretty hard stones especially lower down in just a few thousand years would be unthinkable using modern physics.

When did the "Different State Past" change to the same physics we have today?

Please, let's stay on topic and not make this a "dad" thread.

 

[EternalDragon]

From what I read in the creationist literature concerning the flood, they don't agree with Dr. Brown, who BTW is an engineer, not a sedimentologist. Nevertheless, this is not a GC specific thread at all, I only mentioned because it is the most popular YEC claim as verification for the flood. Let me rephrase the question. What is the thickest layer of sediment anywhere in the world that we would expect deposited from the flood?

I think it is just the upper layers that are assumed to have been
carved out after the flood. Which would have still been semi-soft.
I may be wrong but the lower parts are older (non-fossil bearing)
and had been there prior to the flood.

Upper layers meaning above the tapeats sandstone layer.

That is where the 3000 m comes in and I would start there.

 

[Paul K]

Noah's flood only lasted a year so it cannot have 3000 metre layer that identify with the flood. all you need to see is a layer that has no life between layers that contains fossils of life ie: plants. because that is the only time that Noah's flood did not develop life. Also see a layer that has mass graves of multiple breeds of skeletons in it. That would implies a quick incidence of flood as stated in the bible. 40 days and 40 night is pretty rapid to have a global flood.

p

 

[RickG]

I think it is just the upper layers that are assumed to have been
carved out after the flood. Which would have still been semi-soft.
I may be wrong but the lower parts are older (non-fossil bearing)
and had been there prior to the flood.

Upper layers meaning above the tapeats sandstone layer.

That is where the 3000 m comes in and I would start there.

There are Stromatolites fossils in the deepest sedimentary layer (Bass Formation), well below the Tapeats Sandstone.

Nevertheless, we don't need to focus just on the GC. Do you think 3000 meters of flood sediment would be the maximum thickness of anywhere in the world. You might also consider how deep was the water? What do you think?

 

[juvenissun]

Interesting, may I ask where you arrive at the 3000 meter number? 3000 meters is just short of 2 miles.

Based on the depth of current abyssal plain.

 

[[serious]]

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.

 

[RickG]

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.

That's pretty much on track. I gather the 9000 m above sea level is the 15 cubits over the highest mountain (Mt. Everest). But even though you are very generous with your sediment deposit thickness, I'm giving them even more. That is, if all the sediment we can measure is from the flood, what is that thickness. I'm giving them the 3000 m for the GC, but there are thicker sediments as well. I'm wanting them to give me a number of maximum thickness from their perspective.

 

[dad]

So "post flood" would also have to be DRAMATICALLY different physics too! To carve through thousands of feet of rock including some pretty hard stones especially lower down in just a few thousand years would be unthinkable using modern physics.

Exactly!

When did the "Different State Past" change to the same physics we have today?

I think Rick is allergic to the different nature stuff, so maybe I'll pass on this here. However, it would be long after the flood, over a century, possible 2.