The Flood

[philadiddle]

I do know what to say: You're just making things up. And you know it. There is no basis for this in reality, and you're just trying to leverage your atrocious misunderstanding of theoretical physics into a 'theory' so that you don't have to admit you're wrong. Never in the entire time I've been reading your posts have you displayed even a basic understanding of biology, chemistry, or geology, much less physics. Your relentless 'theorizing' is a discredit to the creationist community and shows just how far and how low many of you will go to avoid admitting that you are wrong.

It's ok, you don't have to be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed enough for you.

When I was a creationist and realized that I was wrong I had to admit it, but the hardest part wasn't understanding the evidence, it was swallowing my pride after hundreds of pro YEC posts on this board. I feel sorry for the people who choose to miss out on understanding what God actually did because they need to cling to their own baseless ideologies.

 

[papakapp]

First problem, the dry land was under the firmament:
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Second problem, the sun, moon and stars are all in the firmament (which also means there are waters above the sun, moon and stars):

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Why do you think it was written to describe it that way? What was the firmament then?

guilty.
The biblical term I should have uses was "fountains of the deep"
We still have water underground today. I actually drink some of it on a regular basis. The bible explicitly mentions two sources of the water (Gen 7:11, 8:2) one vrom "above" and one from "the deep" but I was incorrect when I said it was the same as the water below the firmament. (seas, I presume)

so yeah, my bad. I used the wrong term.

 

[BrendanMark]

That there are waters underground does not account for the volume of water required for sea level to rise 8.8 kilometers with 40 days and 40 nights of rain. The volume of water needs to be accounted for, not merely its origins.

There is no such volume of water on or in planet Earth. The "waters from the deep" and "above the firmament" - taken literally - indicate a Flat Earth view.

 

[papakapp]

Sorry I didn't reply to this before now. A couple of grant proposals came due in the last couple days, so I had my hands full dealing with actual science instead of internet forum science.

cool! may I ask what the field is?

Wow. If you believe that these 'rules' are what govern scientific research, you've got bigger problems than I can help you with. Most of them are not only patently false, but are actually the exact opposite of how one is supposed to approach science. 'Maintain the status quo?' A scientist's quickest path to renown, riches and respect is to DISPROVE the status quo! A scientist who could disprove the theory of evolution or an old earth would be rich and famous beyond his wildest dreams. I would absolutely LOVE to be the guy to do either of those things.

Put those 'rules' out of your head. They are propaganda.

I would think the scientist's quickest path to riches and renown would be to quit being a scientist and go be an actor, or something. but regardless, with pretty much every sub-discipline out there except this one. That is because you really only have two options. either
a) the existence of the universe is a product of observable natural causes
or
b) the existence of the universe is a product of someone or some thing outside of, beyond, above, not contingent upon, the universe.
now, for a theist, or even Christian, either a or b could be true. but for an atheist, only a can be true. And for a young earth proponent, only b can be true.
Now, there are Christians that I respect and learn from that believe a is true. They don't have a problem with me believing b is true, and I don't have a problem with them believing b is true. However, there are also world class scientists that unapologetically and blatantly say "under no circumstances can b be intellectually fulfilling and those that believe b are destructive to humanity" Of course, Dawkins isn't the only guy that would say that, but he is the only guy that wrote a book that says that in the past 10 years that I can think of atm. And don't think for a second that he is the only guy that thinks that way. Of course, I can't speak for anybody but Dawkins, since he is the only one that wrote a book that I can cite, but it is completely reasonable to say that there is a statistically significant percentage of the populace, and scientific populace, that specifically disregard any data that requires a supreme being. In fact, I wish I could link it now but the web site is down. The guy that I linked yesterday, ("the game") also has an interesting article where a non-Christian, and non-theist as far as I can tell, had for the goal of his thesis to debunk neo-darwinism. He could not get published because he was labeled a "creationist" by all the publishers. The guy was not a creationist. and the guy who was responsible for the web page has no vested interest in Christianity either. It's a good read, hopefully the page will be back up tomorrow.

And you know this because you've tried to get funding and publish? Or did you read this somewhere? Doing research that addresses unique aspects of a topic is what gets you funded, and doing this research well is what gets you published. This isn't the case just in the US. This is the case around the world.

I said this because it's what I believe. Some of the particular historical examples of this aspect of human nature which I have studied include Galileo and the flat earth controversy and the wright brothers, who drew a crowd every weekend where observers came to see heavier than air flight but the respected scientific community didn't believe it because it was not published. (of course the respected scientific community would not even show up to observe it either... I guess they were all waiting for it to get published?) Other examples of the scientific community opposing new ideas could include changes to the (then) current thinking on aether, phlogiston and the big bang. The last three are not as big of a deal as they did not take as long to rectify. But yeah, it is absolutely narcissistic to disregard a new idea with mockery and ad hominem attacks like those "new" ideas. And yes, it is my opinion that the intelligent design theory and even young earth theory falls into the category of being mocked and attacked ad hominem.

Funny... I've been doing research for a while now and I've never heard or seen a rule wherein my research must have a certain percentage of 'conformity' to the research of others. Please tell me: How would one MEASURE this conformity? I've NEVER 'assumed' that the research of others was 'not off by more than 10%'; it would be fatal to one;s work to do so. That is unadulterated poppycock.

of course, I cited "the game" (which is down today) but the game postulates that "social rules are never, under any circumstances, articulated" so what you are saying is congruent with my pet theory.

But it doesn't. It explains them quite thoroughly, and with evidence to boot!

I actrually have a coupel honest questions then. I am a little bummed that I have to resort to creationist websites for this one, but I can't find any better links for this information. If you google "fossil graveyard" you will find that the first 5-10 links all have pictures of masses of discombobulated bones of different species all piled together and fossilized. Now, my own theory handles this fine for me. I think that there was a flood, and stuff of the same relative density, when submerged in water behaves like this Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. So it isn't a problem for me to think that if there was a flood, then when the water receded, we should expect to find piles of equally dense animals all in clumps.How does the uniformitarian theory handle this?
Another example of something that has never been explained adequately to me is this: the moon is receding, Niagara falls is receding, the spin of the earth is slowing down, and they have to dredge the Mississippi every year or so. So in each of those 4 cases, the uniformitarian has to say "well, it wasn't like that in the past" But when it comes to the rate of speciation, or the rate or erosion or river beds, the uniformitarian says "yeah, I'm cool with that." So my question is on what basis can the uniformitarian say that"Tthe moon has not always been receding at the rate that it currently is but the erosion of river beds has always been receding at a constant rate." As far as I can tell, there is no evidence for either. It is only a conclusion forced out of a bias that the earth must be very old.


Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is a fun little trinket. I'm still not clear on exactly how they work, as the site is a bit lacking in description, but it is not by liquefaction, or flow via dispersive force, which is what the 'paper' you've posted means by 'fluidized'.
[/quote]
I have not written a doctoral thesis on it or anything, but I believe it is that same principle that causes the garbage aggregation in the pacific that I already linked in this same post. Stuff of like density is affected by currents in the same way so it tends to aggregate. another factor may be the rubber ducky effect. (I just made that effect up, but if you have two rubber duckies in a bathtub, they will stick together like they are magnetic), also applies to pool floaties. So I assume the black sand and the white sand are different densities.
The way this applies to the other "paper" I cited is by way of what they have in common. Stratification. In both cases we observe stratification via a suspension. I suppose it's possible, but I would be extremely surprised If the same principle is not working in both.

So the flood wasn't water, it was mud? Hello Bible revisionist. Anyway, if it was 'semi-coagulated mud', we would not see quartz arenites, oolitic grainstones, or boulder conglomerates, would we? We would see a fairly massive pile of mud. So you've gone from one problem to the other. Instead of being able to explain good sorting, all you can explain now is POOR sorting. So. How would you deposit a pure, fine-grained quartz arenite or an oolitic grainstone from a 'semi-coagulated mud'? How would you deposit a chalk made almost exclusively of coccoliths? How would you form deposits that are identical to those being formed by fluvial systems today from a 'semi-coagulated mud'?

First, if you flood organic soil you will always make mud on the bottom. That is not too difficult, is it? Second I am not sure if you are being serious here or if you are grasping at straws. If you think I have a problem, you most certainly have a bigger problem. I can go to my ditch outside, collect a jar full of mud from the bottom, and if I set it on my counter for 24 hours it will stratify. (I have done it, I found freshwater clams in there the size of bb's and my high school science teacher gave me a jolly rancher for finding clams, but that was years ago) However, If you think the layers are different ages, then one would expect a gradient http://paint.net.amihotornot.com.au/Features/Effects/Plugins/Render/Multi_Color_Gradient/
however, what we actually find is a color graduation
http://www.gettysburgflag.com/images/OrigRainbow.jpg
How on earth could climate change, or diversification of species account for sudden, rapid changes in the color/composition of the dirt? do you think there was a cataclysmic event, separating every age?

Do they all postulate lacustrine deposits in strata of every age as well? Do they postulate tidal flats of every age? How about evaporite deposits of every age? What about stromatolites of virtually every age (Stromatolites require light because they are formed by photosynthetic cyanobacteria. This is only possible in shallow, clear water, which a 'semi-coagulated mud' certainly would not be)?

you don't find that everywhere and you don't expect to, and neither do I. I, like you, I presume would only expect to find that feature where sedimentary deposits are, or were introduced to water. Do you think that I think the whole world was near the beach? In the places that you do find it, I have no reason to doubt that you are correctly interpreting the data. The only issue I would take is the rate of deposition.

Quite easily.

the statement you replied to here was a lead in to what follows in my previous post. So it will be addressed in the next 2 sections.

Which they are not; that is simply a creationist strawman.

good point. I agree with you and I should have worded it better. the gradient/graduation discrepancy is my real dispute with your interpretation of global layering, but that was just addressed I will try to reword this particular question differently at this time by way of example. The grand canyon is about a mile deep and the bottom is about 1.6 billion years old. As far as I know, the uniformitarian principle postulates that the exposed layers in the canyon walls exist everywhere in the northern half of the US except maybe the rocky mountains and the Cascade Mountains. That is a lot of dirt. where did the dirt come from? Now, the area of that particular arrangement of stratification could extent all the way to the east coast, up into Canada, and Down into Mexico. But if it doesn't, then what protected the area immediately surrounding the grand canyon from erosion for 1.6 billion years? and if it does, then where did the dirt come from? I'm sure you don't believe the diameter of the earth was 6.28 miles bigger 1.6 billion years ago. In the Rockies are 10% of the land mass of the US then were they 62.8 times bigger back then? Where did a mile thick of dirt come from over that big of an area?

They all did come from somewhere. Oh, and so did the first one.

yeah, I know. they came from the flood... Oh, did you have a different answer? if so I didn't hear it.

 

[papakapp]

Oh really? Sedimentary strata are not subject to erosion? Submitted for your approval:

Ok. Nothing like demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of sedimentology and stratigraphy in a discussion of... wait for it... SEDIMENTOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY!

Protip: Grab a copy of Sam Bogg's book 'Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy'. It contains great explanations of how sedimentary structures and strata form using examples from the recent and the ancient. If you actually care about this topic, you would do well to learn some basics.

We are observing the same thing. But we are talking past each other to some extent. I believe that that stuff that got eroded all got eroded in one cataclysmic event (not necessarily the biblical flood) and the top layer is in a state of stability. (unless it is subjected to another cataclysmic event) What I am hoping for is for you to explain how the very top layer is continuing to accumulate more stuff so that we will have more layers on top of the same configuration of the same dirt 100 miles from there in the same climate. I believe the dirt 100 miles from there will remain in a stable state unless effected by a catastrophe. Yes stuff changes. Yes stuff erodes down while other stuff builds up. And you have showed me a picture of a canyon that was eroded down, presumably by water. You could also show a picture of Hawaii, presumably built up by volcanic material. But if you look at the canyon walls in your picture you will see straight lines. If straight lines are the norm, (and rivers erode them) then what mechanism do you have to add layers/straight lines/the norm. You still haven't answered my question. I am not being facetious and It very well may be possible for you to answer it if you took the time. I honestly think that this is such a glaring problem that somebody must have taken the time to come up with a better answer.
For every square mile of deposition, a foot thick, there must be an equivalent amount of dirt lost from some place else. What mechanism allows for such extreme losses in one place, while leafing such crisp, razor sharp graduations in another place? Particularly if we must allow for some force to deliver the new dirt to the unmolested resting place?

You're darn right we don't, because that would be ridiculous, and nowhere is this postulated in old earth geology. Yet another strawman.

if its a strawman I would think somebody would take more time to answer it more properly than just calling it a strawman. Until such an event occurs, I will continue to think it is legitimate.

But your original premise (it was even the first one you posted!) was that THE ENTIRE GEOLOGIC COLUMN is a flood deposit. Now there are some after the flood? Care to differentiate between the two?

Careful. You're starting to shift those goalposts.

I re read my post and I can't find that. That does not mean it is not there, but I suspect you heard somebody else say it. Regardless, even if I did say that, that is not what I believe, nor did I believe it when I posted. Like I already said, they have to dredge the Mississippi regularly, we can observe the Niagara falls receding in a single lifetime, we can observe the wind carrying sand dunes, we can identify deposits of volcanic ash. We can observe stuff changing. A lot of it is changing so fast that the uniformitarian is forced to conclude that it has not always been changing as rapidly as it is today despite a lack of evidence to the contrary. In addition I'm sure there are geological connundrums where nobody has come up with a suitable answer. There are some things, like the "fossil graveyards" I cited earlier, or the accounts of human artifacts being found in billion year old dirt in coal mines where I say "The uniformitarian principel is completely inadequate to account for this." But I would say that I currently think that 70-90% of the stratafication we observe on earth would be the result of a single global catastrophe. but I do expect that some things change today. One cool example that I don't feel like looking up is some island city in the Meditranien (Tyre, maybe?) and some war general (Alexander the great, maybe?) dumped dirt in the ocean to build a land bridge to ransack the city. That was a while ago, but today his land bridge is a thick peninsula. It created a large eddy, and more sand continues to be deposited there.

How quickly? Gimme a number.

29.2M cubic meters a year http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/ocea...ns_ndt_about_08_head-passes-hopper-mujica.pdf for one us river

Again, how quickly? And why does this matter?


How quickly is that? And are you making the faulty assumption that all sediments deposited in an area remain in that area? Remember, as you said, wind moves sand quickly. And water moves it even more quickly.

it doesn't matter to me. the rate at which sand moves has, in my opinion, zero weight either for or against a young or old earth. I am actually not sure why you think it would be a problem for me.

Wait, I thought the entire sedimentary column was the result of the flood? Do you mean 'at different times during the flood'? Because that still doesn't solve the problem of how they originated, flourished, and then died.

no, I mean it probably got buried at different times long after the flood. 29.2 miullion cubic meters a year for the Mississippi alone? that's enough dirt to bury 3 reefs over 6000 years. However, if it has been flowing for much, much longer than that we would expect to find more dirt and more buried reefs.

In fact, this goes for nearly all carbonate sediments. The vast majority of carbonate systems are dependent on photosynthetic organisms for production of their sediments. If your 'semi-coagulated mud' flood were true, there could be no subtidal photosynthesis, as I've already pointed out. So unless you're saying that all those carbonate sediments were already laying around (But you're not, because then the entire geologic column wouldn't be a result of the flood), your flood model cannot reconcile carbonate systems.

Hopefully this has already been covered. Yeah, I don't have a problem with sedimentary deposits. I have a problem with crisp, razor sharp graduations in dirt in the middle of a continent that are not accounted for by volcanic ash, river flow, wind or other catastrophic forces.

But the whole geologic column is from the flood, remember? Not from rivers. So were the flood explanation for the geologic column true, there should be no fluvial deposits. Plus, the reef systems generally aren't buried in fluvial deposits. Most of the time they are encased in basinal shales, which have exceptionally LOW sedimentation rates.

ok, this confuses me. I don't know how far a basin has to be from a delta to receive a different classification but unless I am missing something I would think that fluvial deposits would continue to encroach on whatever basin they are flowing into. Are we only talking about observations made on a chunk of dirt that is dried up and we are looking at it after the fact? I feel like I am missing your point here.

How does this follow?

I sorta covered this earlier but just to reiterate, It seems like the percentage of the earth that is in a state of stratafication is too great for the percentage of the earth available to create the stratafication. But if you already talked about it from the part about the grand canyon then you don't have to cover it again.

This is a creationist strawman that ignores delta lobe switching and basin floor subsidence. PRATT. Try again.

But, just for fun, here's a quick refutation: The Mississippi river delta is currently 7 miles thick. The flood is supposed to have occurred about 4,000 years ago. That means that the average sedimentation rate for that system since the flood (when the river would have begun flowing, and this depositing sediment, assuming your model) is 9'3" per year. A paper from Adams and Roberts (1993) puts maximum annual sedimentation rate on the Mississippi delta at 15cm/year (~6"/year). This rate assumes no basinward transport via slope failure and sediment density flows, both of which occur on the delta. So the current delta could not have formed if your flood model was correct.

if by pratt you mean "point raised a thousand times" then I would agree with you. If you mean "point refuted a thousand times" then I'm still waiting for the first refutation. The flood model accounts for the excess sediment my postulating that the river was much bigger shortly after the flood as is accommodated all the runoff east of the Rockies.

Luckily it doesn't need to be.

fair enough, do tell.

You may not, but your flood theory does. I'll take your unwillingness to address these problems as an inability to solve them until you prove otherwise.

ok. I will tell you my personal theory. It is not published and nobody teaches (proselytizes?) it. I think the earth, in its antedelluvian state had massive aquifers much bigger than it does today. And it also had masses of molten rock nearly the same size as it does today. I think the ground cracked probably in the places on that color coded oceanographic map I linked to, the earth settled in, pushing the water out and flooding the earth. I think this settling caused much more stress on the tectonic plate (singular) and it cracked under the Himalayas, Rockies, etc...as it was under tension from sloughing into the voids that are now the oceans. I think so much magma came out of these new cracks that it displaced the water, revealing continents. To the extent that the earth's crust is about 5 times thicker under the continents than it is in the ocean. Yeah, I think it may have been all as thick as it is in the oceans before the flood. So I don't have a problem with weird stuff happening to the dirt, I think it moved a lot while it was still under water. But you can't rip me apart on this. Until now I haven't told anybody and I have not tried to convince anybody. I don't even know if it would be possible to dissipate that much heat that rapidly without frying everything. But there is a lot of magma down there right now and it hasn't fried us yet. And if my theory were true, water would have flowed down into the crack and met the magma at a depth that it currently is. And even if its not true, which it most likely isn't, that still doesn't mean other weird stuff cant happen.

 

[philadiddle]

guilty.
The biblical term I should have uses was "fountains of the deep"
We still have water underground today. I actually drink some of it on a regular basis. The bible explicitly mentions two sources of the water (Gen 7:11, 8:2) one vrom "above" and one from "the deep" but I was incorrect when I said it was the same as the water below the firmament. (seas, I presume)

so yeah, my bad. I used the wrong term.

OK, so do you think that the waters from above the moon came to earth though? Or what was the bible describing in the passages that I quoted? What were those waters?

 

[juvenissun]

I do know what to say: You're just making things up. And you know it. There is no basis for this in reality, and you're just trying to leverage your atrocious misunderstanding of theoretical physics into a 'theory' so that you don't have to admit you're wrong. Never in the entire time I've been reading your posts have you displayed even a basic understanding of biology, chemistry, or geology, much less physics. Your relentless 'theorizing' is a discredit to the creationist community and shows just how far and how low many of you will go to avoid admitting that you are wrong.

It's ok, you don't have to be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed enough for you.

Very disappointing. Such a graduate student in science.

 

[gluadys]

That is because you really only have two options. either
a) the existence of the universe is a product of observable natural causes
or
b) the existence of the universe is a product of someone or some thing outside of, beyond, above, not contingent upon, the universe.
now, for a theist, or even Christian, either a or b could be true. but for an atheist, only a can be true. And for a young earth proponent, only b can be true.

More importantly, for a Christian, both a and b can be true simultaneously. Leaving out that option means you present a false dichotomy.

It also means you present the theologically incorrect proposition that observing natural causes means one is not observing God in action. This assumes that "natural" is equivalent to "absence of God". That is an atheist definition of "natural" that has no legitimate place in Christian theology.

 

[Orogeny]

Such a graduate student in science.

Is this supposed to be an insult? Because I'm proud of the fact that I've spent years putting in the time and effort it takes to become an efficient scientist. If you're disappointed that I've rejected your baseless, incoherent ranting, then that is entirely your problem. Frankly, the real insult is that you think I (and the rest of the people who have worked for what they have) should take you seriously just because you've got an overactive imagination and a tenuous grasp on the English language.

When you show me that you care about the truth, when you show me that you care about the evidence, when you show me that you can have a serious, intelligent conversation about the validity of a scientific theory, then, and ONLY then will I take you seriously. Show us that you care, and that you're ready to put aside your pride and start learning. Papakapp is doing this. Maybe you should give it a shot.

Papa: It may take me a while to respond to your post. As I've mentioned, this is a busy time of year (particularly with the recent weather, which has set our work back a bit). Thanks for your patience.

 

[Mallon]

Firmament = crust of earth, see my thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7531594/

Ummm... so when God said that He set the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament, He meant that He placed them in the crust of the earth?

 

[BrendanMark]

Firmament = crust of earth, see my thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7531594/

I'm sure not everyone will be open to this, however it solves the whole silly water canopy problem.

Not for a minute, does it. The Sun is in the crust of the earth?

Some basic geology and astronomy seems to be in order. The word "volume" also seems to cause confusion. There is no way that the volume of water required for seal level to rise by 8.8 kilometers is explained this way. Not even close to an attempt is made.

 

[papakapp]

OK, so do you think that the waters from above the moon came to earth though? Or what was the bible describing in the passages that I quoted? What were those waters?

Gen. 1:8 in the KJV says "he called the firmament "heaven"
NIV says "he called the vault "sky"
and ESV says "he called the expanse "heaven".

I tend to expect the more precise representation of any given text to be found in the ESV in general. However, this time the KJV does a fine job as as well, as it translates the word "heaven" three different ways throuought the bible. It can be where the birdies fly, it can be where the sun and stars are, or it can be where God dwells. So it is reasonable to conclude that there were three meanings of the word heaven (at least 3). This very well may have stayed in the Hebrew mindset even after they were hellenized since one text in the NT has Paul saying "I know a man who was caught up into the third heaven..." and then he goes on to describe the heaven that God dwells in. So if the third heaven is the one God dwells in, it is logical to conclude that heavens 1 and 2 are different from each other, and also not the one that "man is not permitted to talk about" since we can just look up and see those two. In addition to the obvious, which it that the bible [Hebrew] has only one word for sky, outer space and heaven.

While we have relatively few words that have only one meaning in English, I think that was even more the case in Hebrew. For example, DM meant man, mankind, red, dirt, and it was also a proper name. The masoretes added vowels to the Hebrew looooong after the bible was written, and the way they set the vowels implies that when you were reading along, you would emphasize the word differently depending on the meaning.

Sort of like when we say "Dude, how's it going?" or "Dude, you really screwed up that time." we say the word dude differently.

So I think the water above the heaven was water up in the sky. Most likely in the form of clouds. I have heard it postulated that the water was a sphere of ice, held in position by gravitational force. But that doesn't really make sense to me because we have no mechanism to prevent the outer surface from being obfuscated by space dust, meteors or what-have-you.

 

[papakapp]

That there are waters underground does not account for the volume of water required for sea level to rise 8.8 kilometers with 40 days and 40 nights of rain. The volume of water needs to be accounted for, not merely its origins.

There is no such volume of water on or in planet Earth. The "waters from the deep" and "above the firmament" - taken literally - indicate a Flat Earth view.

well we have an aspiring geologist in this very thread that told us all that the mountains are made up of fossilized marine life.

Call me crazy, but I bet he thinks the tops of all the mountains we have today were a lot closer to sea level some time ago.

 

[Mallon]

well we have an aspiring geologist in this very thread that told us all that the mountains are made up of fossilized marine life.

Right. Not only are there fossils ON the mountains; there are fossils IN the mountains. The mountains are MADE of fossiliferous rocks. Obviously, the fossils were deposited first, and the mountains were subsequently uplifted. Nothing to do with a global flood depositing marine fossils on the mountain tops.

 

[papakapp]

Part 2...


'If there were any [exit points] at all?' How would water come from below the earth without exit points? You're just making random guesses here. Which is essentially par for the course for YEC's. 'When all else fails, GUESS!'. No wonder nobody in the scientific community takes you guys seriously.

BTW, if you're saying that mid ocean ridges (the red parts) are where the water came from, then I guess you're retracting this statement:

You know. Because mid-ocean ridges most certainly aren't full of dirt.

"if there were any exit points at all" is tantamount to saying "if my theory were proved true"
And you really have to give up on repeatedly [mis]quoting "dirt filled voids" Yeah, voids was probably a poor choice of words, I'm sorry I was not clinical enough for you. Let me try again to reword the exact same concept which I have not modified from the first time I said it but with more clinical precision. You have water under the dirt, you have dirt over the water. you actually have at least 6-7 miles thick of dirt over the water. If the 6-7 mile thick dirt were to crack, which it most likely would not too long after it was put there, then the water would come up through the crack while the dirt sinks down. At this time you have dirt filling in the non dirt void. The non dirt void previously contained water until the dirt displaced it. If by void you thought I meant vacuum, then no, I did not mean that sort of void. I also did not mean an air filled void. I meant a spot under the dirt that is devoid of dirt.

Ok, and HOW did it hold up? Structural explanation, please. And when it collapsed, what happened? We have earthquakes today that are caused by very minor plate movements. What was the effect of large, hollow chambers in the crust collapsing, and why weren't these effects (which would have been catastrophic) documented when that happened?

I believe the structure was a a number of 7 mile thick mechanically bonded aggregate, or granite of unknown span and unknown numbers wherein the number times the average span equaled roughly the area2 of the oceans we currently have today. I also believe there was no appreciable amount of atmospheric gasses below the dirt and above the water. (between the dirt and water)

By the way, unless the 'waters of the deep' were in VERY shallow (But they weren't... they're the waters of the DEEP, right?) reservoirs, the geothermal gradient dictates that the water would likely have come out boiling hot. Thjs probably would have been an issue for the arc and its inhabitants, and it certainly would have sterilized most seeds entrained in it.

I think it would have not only sterilized most seeds, but also killed most marine life. I read an article somewhere where they found a whale buried in diatoms. I think it was in California. If I remember correctly, the wale, relative to the strata, was 7 feet thick so that means 7 feet worth of diatoms died quickly enough to bury a whale. I don't think the ocean was ever deep enough to have 7 feet worth of diatoms in one spot, but I do think some cataclysmic event killed 7 feet worth of diatoms, or more likely 9-20 feet worth of diatoms, and the came principle that causes our garbage collection in the pacific, caused all the dead diatoms to collect, and they happened to bury a whale which also more likely than not, died by whatever killed all the diatoms. (which I believe was super heated water) I'm not quite sure how the uniformitarian model can bury a whale with living organisms though.

That doesn't change the fact that it's a major hole (lol) in your theory.


You know, if you're trying to make a scientific argument (are you?), it would be a good idea to understand what you're arguing against. I don't know if you're reciting a strawman here or if you're just grasping at straws, but at least ATTEMPT to understand the petroleum system before you start trying to discredit it. No one, and I mean NO ONE thinks that petroleum was present upon accretion of our planet. Petroleum is generated by thermomaturation of organic matter subject to heat and pressure at depth. Since sediments are constantly being deposited and buried, organic-rich sediments are constantly moving into and through the oil window, oil is constantly being generated, migrating into reservoirs, and yes, sometimes leaking out at the surface.

I can tell you what I was going on. But first I have to tell you about a bumper sticker. It's a picture of a dinosaur inside of a little three arrowed triangle (the recycling symbol) and then the words are "this vehicle is powered by 100% organic hydrocarbons" I honestly think that is the funniest bumper sticker I have ever seen. It works on so many levels. Now, on to what you were saying. In my model, I think all the dead organisms aggregated like the trash in the pacific in some numbver of clumps around the earth. 10, 50, 500, I have no clue how many clumps there were but I think the stuff I mentioned on fossil graveyards is quite persuasive Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--The Boneyards--Evidence of Noah's Flood?.
Anyway, I think the final resting place of these clumps of dead stuff are the places we drill for oil today. I'm honestly completely clueless as to what mechanism you could possibly come up with whereby an appreciable amount of organic matter could collect in one place if it all started on the top. One would think that any "collection zone" would be 99% water as I have no idea what mechanism could possibly keep water out and let dead dinosaurs in. however, I would love to hear it.

Explain why we need one.

because the entire biomass of the planet could not possibly account for the amount of oil we have had under the ground unless you go back, at a minimum, that far. Unless, of course you think that all organic matter everywhere and from every source eventually becomes oil. I was assuming you thought the process was rare. Most dead animals are eaten by other animals and then most energy is lost through heat, ant what isn't lost that way is defecated, which is usually used by plant life, which, when the plant dies is also lost through heat. I always thought everybody thought most all of our energy comes from the sun and most all our energy is lost through heat. Maybe you have a different explanation, if so I would love to hear it.

Organic matter+heat+pressure+time=hydrocarbons. If the sediment is deposited and doesn't enter the oil or gas window for 5,000,000 years, there are no hydrocarbons produced. Please understand that time is not the controlling factor for hydrocarbon production; it is just one of the factors.

so are you saying that the oil we started drilling for about 100 years ago is no older than 5,000,000 years old, or no younger than 5,000,000 years young?

Hydrocarbon generation is VERY well understood. Every major (and every minor) oil company relies on an old earth model of the hydrocarbon system to find and recover petroleum. This is geology applied. If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it, and it obviously works, because petroleum companies are some of the most profitable on earth. So I wouldn't make too big a deal of the oil thing unless you'd like to explain to ExxonMobile, BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell, BHP Billiton, PetroBras, Marathon, Hess, Devon, Anadarko, EnCana, and hundreds of other public and private oil companies that their entire business model is wrong.

You have said nothing of value here yet. I remember when I was a kid, some people came to my parents place and paid them, I think 500 dollars for permission to put testing equipment in the ground to look for oil. Are you saying that today they are able to locate oil without testing for it? If so,I really don't understand why or how that would require an old earth model, could you explain that? I completely fail to see what part of their business model relies on a presupposition that the earth is old, and I happen to work for one of the companies that you mentioned, actually. Maybe they are keeping it secret from me?

Also, clearly your equivocation of subsurface oil and water is mistaken. Good effort though.

um... you said that organic matter doesn't become oil for 5,000,000 years if I understood you correctly. If that is what you believe then you really have to give me a mechanism for getting the oil all the way back up on top of the ground after it seeped all the way down. I have to say, I find the expression "good effort" to be about as weak of a rebuttal as I possibly could imagine. I mean honestly, I am almost tempted to think you are trying to be a double agent for the young earth team. You know, If you don't have a mechanism you can just say so. And if you do have a mechanism you can say that too. My only request is that you use non-jargon if you decide to present your explanation as it is a real pain on the butt for me to look up terms when it is not necessary.

Ok, so then you're backing away from this statement:

Because the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans are not 'dirt filled voids'

I believe they were devoid of dirt and filled with water. However now the dirt is no the bottom.

The first picture appears to be from the Canadian Rockies. Since this is an orogenic province (as is virtually every mountain range), it's pretty common to get folding at very short wavelengths. There are very good structural explanations for folding of this wavelength. A brief google scholar search will bear this out. The second picture appears to be be simple parasitic folding.


Then you clearly have little to no experience with structural geology. Pick up a Twiss & Moore structural geology book. It's pretty easy to understand.


a)Probably.
b) Or it moved slowly enough that it was able to deform plastically. We have a mechanism for that. Care to provide a mechanism for your way?

Sure, it was all mud that settled out of a suspension. then stuff got weird. By weird I mean massive volcanic activity such that it accounts for 80-90% of extant mountain ranges

Wow. Any more propaganda you'd like to post?

My favorite one:


Oh boy, wouldn't want to over-test an idea, would we? One test is fine. Because if it's true in one situation, it must be true in every situation.

Truth. I'll go ahead and appeal to the vast library of structural and tectonic research that has been done over the last 50 years, and which provides the basis upon which most companies that successfully apply geologic concepts are founded. You know, like those companies I listed earlier. The ones that are fabulously successful.

I would take issue with this. At this time, I believe that the companies you listed apply "geologic concepts" based on observed features, not based on postulaed mothodologies. Keeping that in mind, I fail to see how what we observe today is less important to said companies than how we think it got there. Now, I'm not going to accuse you of religious zeal for your pet theories at this time. I will wait, and give you a chance to explain why your pet theory explains "structural and tectonic...concepts" while mine does not. Honestly, I thought we were talking about how it got there, not how it is. Please don't tell me you actually commingle your theories of how it got there and your factual observations abut how it is to that extent...? I am honestly hoping you can shoot me down in some way on this point. I really don't want to believe that there are many people that. yeah, I know there are the Dawkinses of the world that are willing to write a book that says "I am so sure that I am right that I think everybody that disagrees with me is destructive to humanity." But I honestly you don't commingle the two that much.

Then you've never done a lick of research on tectonics. Just type 'plate tectonics' into google scholar. You'll come up with 178,000 results.

ok, I took your advice, but I will admit that I didn't read all 178,000 hits. I was unable to find proof that they always been moving. perhaps you would be willing to narrow it down from the 178,000 to, oh, I don't know, maybe 1?

Assyria, the Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile rivers are all in the same place they were before the Flood, to name a few.

wait, let me get this straight. Are you asking me, when you mention "Tigris" and "Euphrates", to take Genesis 2 literally?



____________________

So let's summarize, shall we? You've made several strawman arguments, several appeals to 'logic', and several arguments from ignorance. You've also made no arguments that cannot be refuted by old earth geology. You've moved some goalposts, backed away from some of your original statements, posted propaganda that in no way accurately characterizes the scientific community, and you've made several rambling comments about 'bias'.

Pretty par for the course for a YEC, and nothing that hasn't been dealt with hundreds of times before.

can't be refuted? how about where you said that buried coral reefs were evidence for an old earth. Now, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that if you find a human buried in the bottom layer, you have more than a little problem. And I most certainly have not heard that be refuted.
Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--The Boneyards--Evidence of Noah's Flood?

 

[papakapp]

I haven't got the math, but I've got an article that cites your fellow YEC boys Baumardner and Austin as agreeing with this:
Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism

Thanks for that. That article starts with the idea that pangea existed before the flood, and North/South America and Europe/Asia/Africa cruised away from each other at such a rate that they were their current distance apart after a year. I don't think that and I never met anyone that did think that. The reason I don't think that is because afaik, we still have earths crust under the Atlantic. There may be a crack 1-100 miles wide, but not enough to account for the entire width of the ocean.

Also, if catastrophic plate tectonics were true, then faults active during this period (most of them) would have moved very quickly. When faults move quickly, the frictional energy between the fault blocks melts the rock along the fault plane, producing a glassy rock along the fault. This glass is called pseudotachylite. It is rare along fault planes. It should not be if rapid plate movement was in effect.

I have thought about that. And I do believe that level of friction is rare. But I don't think the plates were pressed together most of the time. I think the general effect was for the plates to be pulled apart since a sphere is the most surface area efficient shape, and if the plates settled to the bottom of the ocean then any cracks would generally increase surface area, not decrease it. However, I don't have a problemif stuff gets weird from time to time, for example in the unlikely event that a crack happened to form a knob not unlike an interlocking puzzle piece.

Done! Not to mention the refutations provided by talkorigins.com:

CD750: Catastrophic plate tectonics

thanks for that. I personally don't buy into the subduction aspect. But since the whole thing was in single sentence bullet point form, I suppose that is an appropriate type of rebuttal
1)Much geological evidence is incompatible with the uniformitarian model, such and human fossils found in layers that are far too old for humanity, and current erosion rates of rivers.
2)the viscosity was not lowered, they were only moving doe to gravity, hence a sunset on their movement; there never were magnetic reversals and there was never any evidence for it, not q reason to postulate them in the first place unless one had a preconceived bias in favor of an old earth.; if that were true, then the existence of magma under the earht right now should fry us all.
3)that is stupid. We have evidence of such a mass extinction some time in the past that the uniformitarian has been forced to theorize that meteors (of all things) was the catastrophic agent. It is wholly dishonest to argue that a catastrophic event is "unlikely" while simultaneously being forced into postulating a different catastrophic event and attributing it to a different age.

Oh boy.


Of course, you've already backed away from this postulate in this very post.

oh, I did say it in this post. Just to clarify, I believe that all graduated strata is a result of hydrologic sorting and at least 90% of the observed graduated strata is likely a result of one worldwide flood. However, there are examples where this is not the case, such as the graduated strata in the mud flows that resulted from a different cataclysmic event, The eruption of Mt. St. Helens. If deposits are gradient, rather than graduated then it is more likely that they were not part of a worldwide cataclysmic event, an example of this would be the fluvial deposits you cited.

Unless there are known glacial deposits from the Paleoproterozic which are covered by marine deposits, glacial deposits in the Neoproterozoic (there are), which are covered by marine deposits of the Cambrian, and glacial deposits in the Ordovician, Permian and Neogene. There's no bias in the observation that there have been multiple periods of glaciation. We see the deposits in multiple ages and we see glacial striation in multiple ages. This is not interpretation. This is observation.

If you can demonstrate one set of glacial deposits stacked directly on top of another set, separated by a layer of dirt then you have a point. If, however, you see a glacial deposit on this type of dirt in this place, and a glacial deposit on that type of dirt in that place, then you are not saying anything different than what I already believe. I am not sure which you are saying at this time.

I do, and I've given multiple reasons why.


You'll notice that my argument does not even deal with survival of the seeds in flood water (although this is an issue, as I've shown in this post). My argument is based on the substrate upon which the seeds would fall, as well as the historical vegetative record. You haven't addressed any of these arguments; you ignored them and addressed an argument I didn't even make.

We don't see homogeny. the fossilized plant life in Alaska and Russia, I am told is nothing like what Is able to grow there today. And while this is not specifically plant life, I am told that we have plenty of dead camels under Florida so I can't see any explanation other than that the antedilluvian climate of Florida supported camels, and their respective biome. so I am not quite sure why you would think that whatever could survive there before, must be able to survive there after, let alone think that the climate must even be the same before as after, or even think that the landmasses beared even the slightest resemblance before compared to after. I believe that for every 100,000 discrete plants of one genus, there were propably 100,000,000 seeds, and .01 to .00001% of those seeds survived the flood in such a condition that they could still germinate. Now, Immeadetly after the flood we would have roughly an equal distribution of all plant types everywhere on earth in seed form. Whatever genus was capable of surviving the climate in which is landed, grew. If you have a point to make here, I still fail to see it. Perhaps you could reword it?


____________________

So let's summarize, shall we? You've made several strawman arguments, several appeals to 'logic', and several arguments from ignorance. You've also made no arguments that cannot be refuted by old earth geology. You've moved some goalposts, backed away from some of your original statements, posted propaganda that in no way accurately characterizes the scientific community, and you've made several rambling comments about 'bias'.

Pretty par for the course for a YEC, and nothing that hasn't been dealt with hundreds of times before.

can't be refuted? how about where you said that buried coral reefs were evidence for an old earth. Now, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that if you find a human buried in the bottom layer, you have more than a little problem. And I most certainly have not heard that be refuted.
Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--The Boneyards--Evidence of Noah's Flood?
**edit** bottom layer of the specific region containing buried coral, not the bottom layer of the geologic column

 

[papakapp]

Papa: It may take me a while to respond to your post. As I've mentioned, this is a busy time of year (particularly with the recent weather, which has set our work back a bit). Thanks for your patience.

no worries. I really have no intention of writing a 25k character post again myself. (it took me 2 days to get through it all) I will definitely consolidate thoughts in the future.

 

[juvenissun]

no worries. I really have no intention of writing a 25k character post again myself. (it took me 2 days to get through it all) I will definitely consolidate thoughts in the future.

 

[shernren]

I read an article somewhere where they found a whale buried in diatoms. I think it was in California. If I remember correctly, the wale, relative to the strata, was 7 feet thick so that means 7 feet worth of diatoms died quickly enough to bury a whale. I don't think the ocean was ever deep enough to have 7 feet worth of diatoms in one spot, but I do think some cataclysmic event killed 7 feet worth of diatoms, or more likely 9-20 feet worth of diatoms, and the came principle that causes our garbage collection in the pacific, caused all the dead diatoms to collect, and they happened to bury a whale which also more likely than not, died by whatever killed all the diatoms. (which I believe was super heated water) I'm not quite sure how the uniformitarian model can bury a whale with living organisms though.

It was Peru. And we talked a lot about it on this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t5286737/

Essentially, those whales couldn't possibly have been buried during the global Flood. They were buried in shallow water, so they weren't buried during the middle of the Flood. At the start of the Flood, there wouldn't have been enough diatoms locally present to bury the whales, and at the end of the Flood the waters would have been receding so the whale carcasses should have been washed down - but they are buried at the top of a local peak.

Meh. What's your explanation?

 

[Orogeny]

Before I start, I'd like the reader to go back and read papa's first post here. Notice now that his arguments have changed wildly from his first post. He went from 5 simple points, which I refuted, to bringing up everything he can think of, like attacking the scientific community because he doesn't understand how it works. This does nothing but distract from the discussion at hand. I really need only refute one point to dismantle the flood postulate. I've done this, so the remainder of my posts will be for the purpose of education.

cool! may I ask what the field is?

I am a geologist focusing on carbonate stratigraphy, specifically the stratigraphy of reef-rimmed platforms.

I would think the scientist's quickest path to riches and renown would be to quit being a scientist and go be an actor, or something.

That's cute, but then that person wouldn't be a scientist, would they?

but regardless, with pretty much every sub-discipline out there except this one. [SNIP]

I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with a global flood, so I'm going to ignore it and move on to more relevant topics. If there's anything specific you would like me to address from this block of text, please expound upon it.

Of course, I can't speak for anybody but Dawkins, since he is the only one that wrote a book that I can cite, but it is completely reasonable to say that there is a statistically significant percentage of the populace, and scientific populace, that specifically disregard any data that requires a supreme being.

Yes. That would be the entirety of the scientific community. Supreme beings are inherently un-testable, and science does not deal with that which cannot be tested. Understand that the discipline of science is agnostic: God or no god, science doesn't care because science cannot address it. If a problem or hypothesis incorporates or relies upon god, or an un-testable factor of any kind, it is unscientific.

In fact, I wish I could link it now but the web site is down. The guy that I linked yesterday, ("the game") also has an interesting article where a non-Christian, and non-theist as far as I can tell, had for the goal of his thesis to debunk neo-darwinism. He could not get published because he was labeled a "creationist" by all the publishers.

If his thesis incorporated an un-testable supreme being, then it is most understandable that he couldn't get published in a scientific journal.

The guy was not a creationist. and the guy who was responsible for the web page has no vested interest in Christianity either. It's a good read, hopefully the page will be back up tomorrow.

Please post it when you can.

I said this because it's what I believe.

Your belief is mistaken. Please revise it.

Some of the particular historical examples of this aspect of human nature which I have studied include Galileo and the flat earth controversy

He was prosecuted by the church, not the scientific community.

and the wright brothers, who drew a crowd every weekend where observers came to see heavier than air flight but the respected scientific community didn't believe it because it was not published. (of course the respected scientific community would not even show up to observe it either... I guess they were all waiting for it to get published?)

Do you have any evidence of this? Obviously the Wright brothers were able to fly, thus proving the validity of their theory. If scientists of the day were skeptical it was because powered flight had failed every test until the Wrights succeeded. This is how science works. Does the hypothesis pass its tests? If no, the hypothesis is rejected. If yes, the hypothesis is moved into the 'some evidence supports this hypothesis' category, and the hypothesis continues to be tested.

Other examples of the scientific community opposing new ideas could include changes to the (then) current thinking on aether, phlogiston and the big bang. The last three are not as big of a deal as they did not take as long to rectify. But yeah, it is absolutely narcissistic to disregard a new idea with mockery and ad hominem attacks like those "new" ideas.

Narcissism is prevalent among humans, including scientists. But as I said, new ideas are treated with skepticism until evidence supports their validity. As evidence for the big bang accumulated (red shift of galaxies, cosmic background radiation, etc.), the hypothesis was shown to be a workable one, and was thus accepted by the scientific community.

And yes, it is my opinion that the intelligent design theory and even young earth theory falls into the category of being mocked and attacked ad hominem.

This is because they rely on an untestable supernatural being! They are NOT scientific. Yet their proponents insist on trying to insert themselves into the realm of science. It's like a golfer stepping onto a baseball field with a sand wedge and insisting on being allowed to play simply because both sports involve whacking a ball with a stick. Poor ol' Tiger's gonna get laughed at.

of course, I cited "the game" (which is down today) but the game postulates that "social rules are never, under any circumstances, articulated" so what you are saying is congruent with my pet theory.

That's what we call a 'conspiracy theory'. Isn't it convenient when you can cover all the bases by saying "They've got all these rules, plus A BUNCH THEY'LL NEVER TELL ANYONE ABOUT!" Sure makes it easy to play the victim.

Let me ask you this: Have you ever played a game where there were 'unspoken rules'? What were they? How did you know? What happens when someone breaks an 'unspoken rule'?

Please, for your own good, get rid of this type of thinking. I'm here to tell you that there are no 'unspoken rules' in science (if there were, I'd say so, but I wouldn't tell you what they were ). If you don't believe me, please do something to find out for yourself.

I actrually have a coupel honest questions then. I am a little bummed that I have to resort to creationist websites for this one, but I can't find any better links for this information. If you google "fossil graveyard" you will find that the first 5-10 links all have pictures of masses of discombobulated bones of different species all piled together and fossilized. Now, my own theory handles this fine for me. I think that there was a flood, and stuff of the same relative density, when submerged in water behaves like this Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. So it isn't a problem for me to think that if there was a flood, then when the water receded, we should expect to find piles of equally dense animals all in clumps.How does the uniformitarian theory handle this?

The phrase 'fossil graveyard' does indeed turn up a bunch of hits on creationist websites. It is a bit harder to find scientific explanations. One of my favorite modes of preservation is the konservat lagerstatten. In this type of preservation, organisms die (from any number of causes, including childbirth or choking) in a quite-water environment (such as a lagoon or lake), and their bodies sink to the bottom of the body of water. Because the water is calm, there is little mixing, so the water at the bottom does not receive any free oxygen (which is derived from the atmosphere). No oxygen=no bacteria=no decay. The carcass sits on the bottom until it is covered (often by silt or lime mud--fine grained sediment that easily preserves the small features of the organism). The sediments are then buried, lithified, and boom! Exquisite fossils. Read this: Lagerstätte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lagerstatten generally preserve marine organisms (although the Archaeopteryx was found in a German Lagerstatte). Terrestrial organisms can be preserved in tar pits (as in the La Brea Tar Pits), or in fluvial deposits as at Dinosaur National Monument. There are many other modes of fossilization, but these provide the best preservation. Google 'modes of fossil preservation' to get the gritty details of fossilization.

As an aside: You'll notice that all of the creationist websites say that fossils were buried 'quickly' by 'avalanches' of material. While this may be true in some cases, in the case of fine preservation of delicate organisms (as of whole trilobites), an avalanche would tend to destroy the organism, rather than preserving it intact.

Another example of something that has never been explained adequately to me is this: the moon is receding, Niagara falls is receding, the spin of the earth is slowing down, and they have to dredge the Mississippi every year or so. So in each of those 4 cases, the uniformitarian has to say "well, it wasn't like that in the past" But when it comes to the rate of speciation, or the rate or erosion or river beds, the uniformitarian says "yeah, I'm cool with that." So my question is on what basis can the uniformitarian say that"Tthe moon has not always been receding at the rate that it currently is but the erosion of river beds has always been receding at a constant rate." As far as I can tell, there is no evidence for either. It is only a conclusion forced out of a bias that the earth must be very old.

Moon recession and negative acceleration of earth spin: PRATT --> CE110: Moon Receding

Niagara Falls headward erosion: PRATT--> CD610: Niagara Falls erosion

Mississippi dredging: This is a case of human interference. There has been a massive amount of human engineering to keep the Mississippi in a constant state. This in necessary to maintain the commercial usefulness of this waterway. As a natural system, the Mississippi is pretty variable, and this wreaks havoc on shipping, fishing, and habitation of the delta. So it's been engineered to stay stay where it is, where it would naturally avulse otherwise. Dredging of the waterway prevents this avulsion.

Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pacific garbage patch is a result of the Pacific gyre, and collects floating debris. Skeletal material does not float. Thus, a gyre-type accumulation of skeletal debris is not possible. If you disagree, please provide a source that explains why this process would work with heavy skeletal debris.


I

have not written a doctoral thesis on it or anything, but I believe it is that same principle that causes the garbage aggregation in the pacific that I already linked in this same post. Stuff of like density is affected by currents in the same way so it tends to aggregate.

Objects that behave similarly in a particular hydrodynamic condition tend to aggregate, not objects of similar density. If I had a crinoid columnal (calcitic, density ~2.6, cylindrical), i would not expect it to behave the same way as a piece of a fenestrate bryozoan (calcitic, density ~2.6, fan-shaped). This is a principle called 'hydrodynamic equivalence', and it disproves your 'equal densities' theory.

another factor may be the rubber ducky effect. (I just made that effect up, but if you have two rubber duckies in a bathtub, they will stick together like they are magnetic), also applies to pool floaties.

Static electricity.

So I assume the black sand and the white sand are different densities

That's quite an assumption.

The way this applies to the other "paper" I cited is by way of what they have in common. Stratification. In both cases we observe stratification via a suspension.

Stratification in a volcanic eruption such as the one @ St. Helens is due to the principle I just described-- hydraulic equivalence. Except that the medium isn't water, it's air, so in this case it would more accurately be termed aerodynamic equivalence. Stratification in volcanics can also be the result of multiple eruptions, or an eruption that has multiple pulses of material. It can also be produced by flow, the liquefaction you mentioned earlier.
Anyway, stratification in volcanics is a poor analogue for stratification in sediments.

First, if you flood organic soil you will always make mud on the bottom. That is not too difficult, is it?

It is if your flood if violent, as it would be if 'fountains of the deep' were in play. In that case you would most likely strip the soil away, as I've already pointed out.

Second I am not sure if you are being serious here or if you are grasping at straws. If you think I have a problem, you most certainly have a bigger problem. I can go to my ditch outside, collect a jar full of mud from the bottom, and if I set it on my counter for 24 hours it will stratify.

Keep on flip-flopping pal. What you are describing is density stratification. I've already addressed the fact that the sedimentary column, as a whole, is not stratified based on density or grain size.

(I have done it, I found freshwater clams in there the size of bb's and my high school science teacher gave me a jolly rancher for finding clams, but that was years ago) However, If you think the layers are different ages, then one would expect a gradient http://paint.net.amihotornot.com.au/Features/Effects/Plugins/Render/Multi_Color_Gradient/


however, what we actually find is a color graduation
http://www.gettysburgflag.com/images/OrigRainbow.jpg

We find both in the sedimentary record, because there are a variety of processes that control sediment deposition. In no way is this argument effective in supporting a global flood.

It occurs to me that you are just speculating based on your 'common sense'. This kind of speculation is of no worth in science, and can be very misleading. Do some research. Do some work to learn these concepts rather than just blathering on about whatever you feel must be true.