The Flood As Science

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:57 pm

In the Creation in the Classroom thread, we recognized that an important issue is to assess whether it is possible to present Creationism as science. We began such a discussion in the Global Flood thread, since the Flood figures into much of the Creationist interpretation of the data that are otherwise used to support evolution. Here, I've tried to tie our discussion together, and present the issues at the beginning of a thread where they will be easier to find and refer to.

The approach is to treat the Flood Model scientifically. It is the Creationist explanation for observations we make today. This makes it, in some sense, a Creationist hypothesis. To treat this hypothesis scientifically, we will apply standard scientific reasoning. First, what is the hypothesis? We will state our understanding clearly. Second, what predictions are made by this hypothesis? We will develop a set of predictions. Third, what tests or new observations can we envision that would assess the accuracy of these predictions? It is my hope that the Creationists among us will investigate these observations and report what they find.

For the non-Creationists, let me say that it is moot what the pre-flood conditions were, and whether the laws of physics were the same then as now. The model builds in the idea that things were, in fact, different. Since this is the model, we must take it at face value as part of the model. However, after the flood, it is said that the laws of physics were stabilized in the state that we can now measure. Thus, our predictions really must address the consequences of the flood, not the conditions prior to it.

The hypothesis, as presented here, derives from conversation primarily with otseng who first suggested working from Walt Brown's hydroplate idea. If it differs from your favorite scenario, it would be good to see what the differences are.

Note that a scientific treatment is to test the hypothesis. It is not adequate to look at existing structures in the world and say 'yeah, that can be explained by this hypothesis,' because this approach misses the fact that other hypotheses may also explain it. The key is to assess whether the clear predictions of our hypothesis are met.

HYPOTHESIS

1. Water welled up from the earth's interior, providing sufficient water to rain like mad and eventually to cover the earth's surface. Living things like Noah were protected from the physical effects that would occur today by supernatural means, or by virtue of the laws of physics being different pre-Flood.

2. The water was ejected through cracks in the earth's crust, with such force as to deform the layer below (in an upward direction) into a series of ocean ridges.

3. The upheaval created vast quantities of sediment, which settled out to form the geological strata that we now observe.

4. Vegetation was all covered by sediments, and subsequently converted to coal and oil. 'Stirring' of the Flood water resulted in non-uniform deposition of different species, and non-uniform sizes and locations of coal and oil deposits.

5. Plants and animals were covered by sediments, and subsequently fossilized.

6. Different kinds of rocks ended up in different strata due to differential rates of sedimentation, and to continued ejection of stuff from the underground chamber.

7. Continued ejection of stuff resulted in some interference with the ordered sedimentation ('stirring'), so that the some kinds of rock may be found in more than one stratum.

8. Different kinds of fossils ended up in different strata due to differential rates of sinking; i.e. the model called 'hydrogical sorting of ecological niches.' Again, there may have been some interference by continued ejection of stuff.

9. The flood covered 100% of the earth's surface, including the mountains, and receded only after complete destruction of all living things that were not on the ark (or could swim, or otherwise survive such a catastrophe).

10. After formation of the sediments, the crust slid downhill from the ocean ridges, causing compaction and stress, and eventually the uplift of the major mountain ranges that now exist.

11. Large canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, were carved by the rapid retreat of the flood waters from the mountains, while the sediments were still soft enough to erode quickly.

Fine. Here's a hypothesis. If it explains the way the world is now, its predictions should all be met. These are the ones we have previously agreed upon, with some clarification based on our prior discussions:

PREDICTIONS

1. Except in those areas that were rapidly eroded when the water went away (to wherever it went), surface rocks should be no older than the flood itself.

2. Basement rocks, that existed prior to the flood, should be older than the sedimentary layers deposited by the flood, but should be no older than their date of creation.

3. Basement rocks, that existed prior to the flood, should show no evidence of different strata.

4. Except for those areas that were rapidly eroded, and except for the vicinity of the ocean ridges, all of the earth's surface should be covered with sediments from the flood. This should be especially true in low-lying areas, where sediments would be more likely to accumulate without danger of being washed to a lower level.

5. The rock strata should vary in a consistent pattern, with more rapidly-sedimenting material at the bottom of the geological column, and more slowly-sedimenting material at the top. The few instances of repeating series of rock types would be dependent on the frequency with which 'burps' (if you will) of the ejection of water from the earth's interior caused stirring, or interference with sedimentation.

6. Fossils should show a consistent pattern in the geological column: heaviest on the bottom, lightest on the top (or some such thing). That is: similar kinds of fossils should not be found in widely separated strata. Again, this would be dependent on the frequency with which ejection of water stirred things up.

7. Because we cannot guess how often ejection of water stirred things up, and because it is likely to have been locally variable depending on local conditions, we cannot easily determine the local frequency of such stirring. However, we can predict that, in regions where little stirring occurred, and in regions where frequent stirring occurred, points 5 and 6 should lead to parallel repetitions of both rock types and fossil types in the strata.

8. No footprints of land animals should be found in strata that were eroded by the receding flood waters, since the land animals had been killed before the water receded.

9. Deep canyons that formed as the Flood water drained away from the uplifting mountains should be found primarily near mountains. Similar deep canyons should be rare in low-lying areas.

10. Canyons should follow the 'easiest line of descent' from the mountains, if they were formed by runoff as the mountains drained away. Water usually flows downhill, and is unlikely to flow uphill to carve a canyon through an impediment.

TESTS

Since the easiest way to test predictions is to see if any of them are not met, here are some tips, listed in order of prediction.

1. Are the ages of surface rocks in different locations consistent? Dating techniques have inherent degrees of error, so exact correspondence isn't to be expected. But we would certainly expect dates within, say, a factor of two (or even 10) of each other.

2. Within the error of measurement, is it possible to divide the ages of various rocks into two discrete categories: relatively old (pre-flood) and relatively new (post-flood)? We would not expect extensive variation in ages--more like 6000 years vs 4000 years.

3. Are the oldest rocks we can find uniform in their appearance, or is there evidence of sedimentary strata? Another way to phrase this is: are all sedimentary strata uniformly young, and all homogeneous rocks uniformly old (except, of course, for rocks formed by recent volcanic activity)? The Vishnu Schist in the Grand Canyon is suggested to be pre-Flood rock with no strata; are other Precambrian rocks of this age or older also without parallel strata?

4. Are there locations in the world, especially low-lying areas, with very different kinds of rocks on the surface? A corollary to this is the question: are there locations in the world in which rocks of the same type can be found on the surface in one location, and closely apposed to the basement (pre-flood) rocks in another location?

5. Are there any examples of repeated sedimentation patterns--like hundreds of repeats of alternating limestone and shale in very deep canyons? The number of repeats would indicate the number of 'stirring events' that occurred during the flood; the more sedimentation that has occurred below these strata, the less likely it is that many repeats should be found (as most of the sediment should have sedimented).

6. Are there any instances of similar fossils in widely separated strata? A good example might be bivalves (brachiopods, oysters, etc) of similar sizes. Again, some repeats might be expected if the flood involved a number of 'stirring events,' but toward the top of the geological column, after most sedimentation has occurred, certainly the heaviest fossils should have sedimented. At least, fossils near the bottom should not be at all similar (with respect to their hydrodymanic properties) to fossils at the top (again, bivalves are good examples: brachiopods, oysters, etc).

7. In regions with repeated series of strata, similar repeats of fossils should be found, since the repeats indicate 'stirring' events, which should apply to all of the suspended sediment, including dead animals that can be fossilized.

8. Are there animal footprints in any rock layers that should have formed only during the flood, and cannot have been exposed until after the flood receded?

9. Where do we find deep canyons (or any canyons) that would indicate large amounts of water flowing through them to carve them? Are they all near mountains, which could provide the source of the runoff?

10. Do canyons or current river valleys follow the easiest path of descent from the mountains that they drain?

If we agree with these statements of hypothesis and predictions, we should be able to look into the published literature, or make our own observations, to address the predictions. What do we find?

Post by **otseng** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:54 am

I found another diagram illustrating the basements rocks.

Below is a cross-sectional diagram of the area at Boulder, Colorado.

Source: Mark Williams Mountain Geography

Note that the basement rocks lack the parallel stratifications.

From looking at the diagram, one would surmise that all the layers were laid down first, then the mountain was formed. But this raises some questions. When were all the layers laid down? When did the final Pierre Shale layer get laid down? The mountain must have been then formed after the Pierre Shale was formed. What then caused the mountain to form? If tectonic forces, why are there not any evidence of tectonic forces causing deformations during the formation of all the layers from the Fountain Formation strata to the Pierre Shale strata?

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:18 pm

Thank you, otseng! I really like the diagrams, because they help me visualize the formations.

I've collected fossils in the Pierre Shale, and admired the dinosaur footprints in the Morrison Formation on the edge of Denver, so I feel a certain affinity for your last image. As I understand it, the Pierre Shale is late Cretaceous in age (toward end of the age of dinosaurs). The Morrison is late Jurassic (sort of mid-dinosaur). The Fountain Formation, which is underlain by the granitic rocks, is Pennsylvanian in age. Pennsylvanian turns out to be what we have here at home; it contains crinoid fossils where it is from sea-bed.

Given the ages of these rocks, as determined both by measurement of radioactive decay and, independently, by fossil assemblages, it's clear that there are additional layers of older age that are not found in this location. These rocks do not go back to the Cambrian, but only to the Pennsylvanian.

It therefore seems unlikely that the granite is true basement rock. Rather, it is of a younger age--from more recent volcanism.

Hmmm...I presume that direct dating has been done with these granites, but I don't know the results, so I will present some logic that does not assume the ages are known. If your hypothesis is that basement rocks do not have strata, and therefore these metamorphic rocks are pre-Flood, then we'd have to conclude that somehow, during the Flood, something prevented the formation of about half of the strata that we find in other places--the Cambrian through Mississippian formations. This would be an "unconformity" in geological jargon, a place where younger rocks lie on older rocks without the rocks of intermediate age inbetween.

I'd have to say that these rocks are missing on the basis of the Flood Model's explanation of fossils: that the heavier ones sank first. There are Cambrian rocks elsewhere, with the appropriate fossils in them, but something prevented them from being deposited here. What?

The natural geological model suggests that the Fountain formation, and the subsequent layers above it, were formed by sediments from the erosion of the very ancient "ancestral rockies." Then, more recent volcanic activity caused the intrusion of the granite, which lifted up the mountains, and deformed the previously-horizontal strata so that they make these wonderful curves as they get closer to the Rront Range.

Hmm. I wonder if we need to look for rocks that directly underlie Cambrian formations, to be sure we're looking at the pre-Cambrian basement rock. I'll look around and see what I find.

Post by **otseng** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:46 pm

OK, it’s been awhile since I’ve posted in this thread, but I’ll move the topic along by going on to the next prediction.

Prediction
4. Except for those areas that were rapidly eroded, and except for the vicinity of the ocean ridges, all of the earth's surface should be covered with sediments from the flood. This should be especially true in low-lying areas, where sediments would be more likely to accumulate without danger of being washed to a lower level.

Test
4. Are there locations in the world, especially low-lying areas, with very different kinds of rocks on the surface? A corollary to this is the question: are there locations in the world in which rocks of the same type can be found on the surface in one location, and closely apposed to the basement (pre-flood) rocks in another location?

First some information about sedimentary rocks:

“The sedimentary rock cover of the continents of the Earth's crust is extensive, but the total contribution of sedimentary rocks is estimated to be only five percent of the total. As such, the sedimentary sequences we see represent only a thin veneer over a crust consisting mainly of igneous and metamorphic rocks. Sedimentary rocks include common types such as chalk, limestone, sandstone, and shale." 1

“Sediments form sedimentary rock by compaction and cementation of the particles. Thus, coarse sediments become conglomerates ; sands become sandstone ; and muds become shale . Sedimentary rocks make up only about 5% of all rocks of the earth's crust, yet they cover 75% of the land area in a veneer that averages 2.26 km (1.4 mi) in thickness, ranging from 0 to 12.9 km (0-8 mi).” 2

“approximately 75% of the Earth's surface is covered with sedimentary rocks.” 3

“Limestone and chalk are composed of mineral calcite (calcium carbonate). The primary source of this calcite is usually marine organisms.” 4

“The mean sedimentary thickness is 1.8 km on continent (35% of the earth’s surface, and 0.3 km on ocean’s surface). Therefore the average thickness is about 0.8 km which is 4.8 % of the total crust or 0.013% of the whole earth”. 5

“Sedimentary rocks make up only about 5% of all rocks of the earth's crust, yet they cover 75% of the land area in a veneer that averages 2.26 km (1.4 mi) in thickness, ranging from 0 to 12.9 km (0–8 mi).” 6

4. Except for those areas that were rapidly eroded, and except for the vicinity of the ocean ridges, all of the earth's surface should be covered with sediments from the flood.

From what I can tell, the areas that are not covered by sedimentary rocks are near oceanic ridges, the shields, and the polar regions.

For a diagram of the sediments on the ocean floors, NOAA has a large map in Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans & Marginal Seas. You can compare the map to a topo map of the ocean floor.

Shields are exposed cratons(basement rocks). One such shield, the Canadian Shield has no sedimentary rocks. 7

The polar regions are covered by ice and obviously doesn’t contain sedimentary rocks on the surface. But, Iceland is an area that also lacks much sedimentary rocks. “Iceland is built almost exclusively of volcanic rocks, predominantly basalts.” 8

One interesting discovery in an Antarctica expedition in 1909, explorers found coal on the Polar Plateau at an altitude of 10,200 feet. 9 How did coal get formed in Antarctica?

Other than these areas, from what I can tell, all of the surface is covered by sedimentary rocks.

4. Are there locations in the world, especially low-lying areas, with very different kinds of rocks on the surface?

One place I found interesting was the Bahamas. The Bahamas is sitting on top of pure limestone.

“The white limestone under the shallow waters is what causes the bright blue halo. The margins of the shelf can drop off steeply, for example on the Atlantic Ocean side (right of the island in this image), a nearly vertical drop to depths of 4000 m explains the thinness of the blue perimeter, while on the western side, the shelf is much wider.” 10 Here is a satellite image of the Bahamas.

“The Great Bahama Bank is a pile of coral reef limestone at least 4500 meters (2.8 miles) thick that has been accumulating since Cretaceous time.” 11

So, here is evidence of one low lying area that has a rock composition vastly different from other areas.

References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock
2. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/sectio ... ryRock.asp
3. http://www.cat.cc.md.us/courses/eas101/ ... ntary.html
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone
5. http://www.d.umn.edu/~pmorton/geol2300/ ... nition.doc
6. http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0861014.html
7. http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol212/sedrxintro.htm
8. http://www.iceland.is/embassy/icelandis ... 01454E4700
9. http://www.wonderquest.com/coal-winters ... gnoses.htm
10. http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?12760
11. http://users.unimi.it/paleomag/ambienti ... _C-16.HTML

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:35 pm

Gosh, otseng, you've really worked hard!

Let me try to summarize...
1. We see sedimentary rock in most places, but not the ocean ridges, and not the stable cratons.
2. There are some places that are volcanic, rather than sedimentary, such as Iceland. But, this is ongoing volcanic activity, so we might not be surprised to find that little is sedimentary. The same can be said of Hawaii, I suspect.
3. There do seem to be surface rocks of different kinds. The photo of the Bahamas is gorgeous! I wonder...can we wiggle out of this example by considering the fact that much of it is current reef, with limestone-depositing organisms hard at work even as we speak?

Hmm...why might there not be sediments on the cratons? More "geologically," we might ask why sediments cover just the edges of the cratons, and not the centers? A global flood should have covered the centers just as deeply as the edges. Yet, the edges of the North American craton have great piles of stuff (Appalachians, Rockies), while the center (Wisconsin) is pure, ancient basement rock. There is a geological explanation, but is there a Flood Model explanation?

Antarctica isn't a worry, by the way. It would have accumulated its sediments (and its coal seams) before it moved to its current polar position. If the FM envisions a mechanism to separate continents and create ocean ridges, then it can move Antarctica as well--and let it get covered in snow and ice afterwards.

I guess I'd like to see more information about what rocks are on the surface in different locations. Where I live, we are on a series of inter-leaved sandstone, shale, and sandstone. A few miles further west, the strata are limestone--and quite thick, pure limestone, at that. It's what the Pentagon and the Empire State Building are faced with. Farther west, but still in Indiana, we come to coal seams (and abandoned coal mines). To our east, we have more limestone and shale. Interestingly, the eastern fossils are trilobites, while those here are much younger crinoids, and those to the west are from terrestrial formations (ferns, for example). That is, the strata are almost, but not quite, horizontal, with the oldest layers exposed in the east, and the youngest layers exposed in the west--but at about the same elevation above sea level--and variation in whether the fossils are aquatic or terrestrial.

To our north, the surface rocks are either hills formed just from jumbled rock and sand, presumed to be the terminal morraines from the glaciers of the ice ages, or flat farmland with a thin layer of what appears to be wind-blown silt. There are no fossils there. to the north of the morraines, we have the craton, with no sedimentary rock at all. These are quite diffferent kinds of suface deposits. What do you make of them?

Post by **otseng** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:33 pm

Jose wrote:
Given the ages of these rocks, as determined both by measurement of radioactive decay and, independently, by fossil assemblages, it's clear that there are additional layers of older age that are not found in this location.

I'm not entirely clear by what you mean that there are additional layers that are not found. There are very few places in the entire world where all the layers of the "geologic column" can be found. Missing stratum is the norm.

If your hypothesis is that basement rocks do not have strata, and therefore these metamorphic rocks are pre-Flood, then we'd have to conclude that somehow, during the Flood, something prevented the formation of about half of the strata that we find in other places--the Cambrian through Mississippian formations.

Layering would not be expected to be similar throughout the world by the Flood deposits. So, in the FM, there would not be a global "geologic column" that can be compared with.

Jose wrote:
3. There do seem to be surface rocks of different kinds. The photo of the Bahamas is gorgeous! I wonder...can we wiggle out of this example by considering the fact that much of it is current reef, with limestone-depositing organisms hard at work even as we speak?

One question is how did such a large deposit of limestone get formed? As noted above, it is at least 4500 meters thick. That is quite a large amount of limestone. One would expect that it was formed over a short period of time, rather than accumulated over millions of years. The location is also consistent with the the FM since it is near the coastline (of the US). I would assume the surface of the Bahamas are not comprised primarily of limestone, but sedimentary rocks. So, why would it have accumulated pure limestone over millions of years, then had sedimentary rock on top of that? Also, in what locations of the world do we see pure limestone being formed of such thickness?

Hmm...why might there not be sediments on the cratons? There is a geological explanation, but is there a Flood Model explanation?

I was thinking about this too and I have a theory. From what I can tell, the exposed cratons are primarily in the extreme northern locations. Why would not sedimentary rocks be found on top of it? Sedimentary rocks as proposed by the FM are deposited during the flood. It was a mixture of rocks and water that covered the earth. I theorize that what caused more rocks to settle near the equator than the poles is through tidal forces and the climate change that caused the polar regions to precipitate ice/snow. Through a combination of these two things, less sediments were deposited in the polar regions than near the equator.

I am curious about the uniformitarian explanation to why there are no sedimentary rocks on top of shields. I have tried to find it, but I have not been able to.

To our north, the surface rocks are either hills formed just from jumbled rock and sand, presumed to be the terminal morraines from the glaciers of the ice ages, or flat farmland with a thin layer of what appears to be wind-blown silt. There are no fossils there. to the north of the morraines, we have the craton, with no sedimentary rock at all. These are quite diffferent kinds of suface deposits. What do you make of them?

My guess is that those layers are actually parallel to each other, but all at an incline. The exposed parts on the surface are different layers, much like the diagram of the Boulder area.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:32 pm

otseng wrote:
Jose wrote: Given the ages of these rocks, as determined both by measurement of radioactive decay and, independently, by fossil assemblages, it's clear that there are additional layers of older age that are not found in this location.

I'm not entirely clear by what you mean that there are additional layers that are not found. There are very few places in the entire world where all the layers of the "geologic column" can be found. Missing stratas is the norm.

Hmmm...what did I mean? Aha! In reference to your figure of the strat around Boulder, the "Fountain Formation" is lying directly on granite. there are two possibilities for this. Either the older deposits (Cambrian through Mississipian) were not laid down here by the Flood, or the granite intruded much more recently. That is, if relatively recent volcanic activity (granitic intrusion) lifted the Fountain Formation (and that which is on top of it), then we wouldn't expect the older rocks to be present between the granite and the Fountain Formation. I find it easier to envision more recent vocanism than to envision some way for the global flood to deposit Cambrian through Mississippian rocks in many places, but completely skip them here--and then take up with normal-thickness Pennsylvanian through Cretaceous. Does this help explain the logic I used to come up with the next bit?

Jose wrote: If your hypothesis is that basement rocks do not have strata, and therefore these metamorphic rocks are pre-Flood, then we'd have to conclude that somehow, during the Flood, something prevented the formation of about half of the strata that we find in other places--the Cambrian through Mississippian formations.

Your response,

otseng wrote: Layering would not be expected to be similar throughout the world by the Flood deposits. So, in the FM, there would not be a global "geologic column" that can be compared with.

...leaves me puzzled, for the reason outlined above. I can envision no natural mechanism to prevent Cambrian-through-Mississippian sediments from forming, then suddenly switch to perfectly normal sedimentation thereafter.

otseng wrote:
Jose wrote: 3. There do seem to be surface rocks of different kinds. The photo of the Bahamas is gorgeous! I wonder...can we wiggle out of this example by considering the fact that much of it is current reef, with limestone-depositing organisms hard at work even as we speak?

One question is how did such a large deposit of limestone get formed? As noted above, it is at least 4500 meters thick. That is quite a large amount of limestone. One would expect that it was formed over a short period of time, rather than accumulated over millions of years. The location is also consistent with the the FM since it is near the coastline (of the US). I would assume the surface of the Bahamas are not comprised primarily of limestone, but sedimentary rocks. So, why would it have accumulated pure limestone over millions of years, then had sedimentary rock on top of that? Also, in what locations of the world do we see pure limestone being formed of such thickness?

As I understand it, there are two methods of limestone production. One is by reef-building, which is relatively localiized, quite rapid, and does not necessarily produce horizontal strata. The other is by the slow accumulation of calcium carbonate due to the activity of smaller organisms; this sediments to form horizontal strata. I don't know about the limestone in the Bahamas, but my guess is that it's of the reef type, and is therefore the result of rather rapid production by reef-building organisms. As for current more-traditional limestone deposition, I'd choose the gulf near Florida, where the sea is warm and not too deep. This is essentially a continuation of the Florida peninsula, which is limestone embedded with rather recent fossil shells.

otseng wrote:
Jose wrote:Hmm...why might there not be sediments on the cratons? There is a geological explanation, but is there a Flood Model explanation?

I was thinking about this too and I have a theory. From what I can tell, the exposed cratons are primarily in the extreme northern locations. Why would not sedimentary rocks be found on top of it? Sedimentary rocks as proposed by the FM are deposited during the flood. It was a mixture of rocks and water that covered the earth. I theorize that what caused more rocks to settle near the equator than the poles is through tidal forces and the climate change that caused the polar regions to precipitate ice/snow. Through a combination of these two things, less sediments were deposited in the polar regions than near the equator.

I'm not sure this holds up. There are nice sediments on the Antarctic continent, as well as in Alaska. The northern Rockies (quite well banded with sedimentary rock) are farther north than the sediment-free parts of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Tidal forces should produce a relatively uniform trend from more sediment at the equator to less at the poles, but it doesn't look like that to me. It looks like the North American plate, for example, is a raft with stuff heaped up around the edges, and less in the middle--as if it's floating, and can tip to the right or left to pick up debris from the ocean, but can't submerge entirely.

otseng wrote:I am curious about the uniformitarian explanation to why there are no sedimentary rocks on top of shields. I have tried to find it, but I have not been able to.

I may have just described it. The shields float, and can tip one way or another, but have a hard time becoming entirely submerged. The mantle on which they float is just too dense for them to sink very deeply.

otseng wrote:
Jose wrote:To our north, the surface rocks are either hills formed just from jumbled rock and sand, presumed to be the terminal morraines from the glaciers of the ice ages, or flat farmland with a thin layer of what appears to be wind-blown silt. There are no fossils there. to the north of the morraines, we have the craton, with no sedimentary rock at all. These are quite diffferent kinds of suface deposits. What do you make of them?

My guess is that those layers are actually parallel to each other, but all at an incline. The exposed parts on the surface are different layers, much like the diagram of the Boulder area.

This is probably the best explanation, all right. But how would the Flood manage this? There are low hills here, and some rivers, but no nearby mountains to encourage the Flood water to erode the surface more-or-less smoothly before cutting the ravines. It would have had to erode lots of sediment, or else we're back at that odd idea that somehow, the Flood managed to sediment Silurian-Pennsylvanian here, but skipped everything thereafter. I find it easier to picture slow deposition of the rocks when the shield was tilted favorably, and no deposition when it was not so-tilted, and slow erosion.

Hmmm...this makes me wonder a bit about our prediction that surface rocks should be of the same age, more or less. Between Boulder and Indiana, we have a wide range of ages, which seems to indicate that the prediction is not met. But, if the hypothesis states that, in the early stages of the Flood, there was some kind of weird turbulence that could somehow prevent sedimentation, and that this was different in different places, then we must accept that the prediction is not actually appropriate for the hypothesis. Either that, or (as happens a lot in science), we've had to modify the hypothesis (or at least make it much more explicit). It wasn't a "simple" flood, but a complicated one with unusual hydrodynamics.

seventil · Post by **seventil** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:41 am

Regarding dating techniques: Is there any material or has any research been done in the field of castastrophic effects of strata and geology? Or, more simply put - what effects would a Flood catastrophe have on radio-isotope dating, or other dating methods?

I'm curious on this subject. I've thought about taking some more geology classes, but the ones I have taken in the past were littered with "evolutionary" presumptions of constant decay rates, assumptions of daughter elements not being present, etc. I've always wondering how a global Flood would change or effect these.

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:43 am

seventil wrote:Regarding dating techniques: Is there any material or has any research been done in the field of castastrophic effects of strata and geology? Or, more simply put - what effects would a Flood catastrophe have on radio-isotope dating, or other dating methods?

None that cannot be avoided.
A flood might be able to wash isotopes out of exposed rock (or at least from its surface, but this can happen in local floods just as well and it rather surely is taken into account. In case of e.g. samples which were enclosed in intact crystals such as zircon we can be quite sure that they were not influenced by water whatsoever.

I'm curious on this subject. I've thought about taking some more geology classes, but the ones I have taken in the past were littered with "evolutionary" presumptions of constant decay rates, assumptions of daughter elements not being present, etc. I've always wondering how a global Flood would change or effect these.

Contamination or loss of relevant isotopes can be detected with isochron dating methods with great certainty, and the decay rates are not just assumed to be constant either. E.g. observed supernovae indicate no change of the decay rates since the supernovae happened, based on a spectrometrical analysis of the radiation. Other things which indicate a constant decay rate of the respective elements are calibration methods such as comparing the results of the raiometric dating to dendrochronological dates. Again, these correlate nicely.
Saying that the decay rates have not changed beyond the accuracy of our measuring instruments is beyond reasonable doubt.

Perhaps the thread about radiometric dating would be a better place to discuss this though, so we don't derail this one:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9&start=10

jwu

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:51 pm

seventil wrote:Regarding dating techniques: Is there any material or has any research been done in the field of castastrophic effects of strata and geology? Or, more simply put - what effects would a Flood catastrophe have on radio-isotope dating, or other dating methods?

I think the kinds of errors that would be introduced would be, essentially, mixing of material. This is always a question that paleontologists ask when collecting fossils: did this fossil originally come from this stratum, or was it eroded from a different stratum, and then deposited here? A flood could certainly pick up rocks from different strata and leave them in a pile in a new place.

There have been examinations into catastrophic events. One that comes to mind, and is relevant to this issue, is a report I read some years ago about a geological formation near Waco, TX. The nature of the formation, and fossils contained therein, was so different from other material around it that it seemed highly unlikely that the formation resulted from the normal processes that formed the nearby layers. Rather, it looked like the results of a catastrophic event. The interpretation then (which may or may not still be accepted) was that this formation may have been formed by detritus from the tsunami that occurred after the meteor impact near what is now Chixulub. This was quite a catastrophe, indeed. Its geological effects at this location in Texas were the deposition of material that was different from the material already there.

Radiometric dating of the rocsk in this formation would provide the ages of those particular rocks, but not necessarily the age of the formation itself, since the rocks were picked up and moved to a new location. To date the formation itself, it would be necessary to date strata above and below that were not disturbed by the catastrophe, and thus "bracket" the age of the formation itself.

I'm curious on this subject. I've thought about taking some more geology classes, but the ones I have taken in the past were littered with "evolutionary" presumptions of constant decay rates, assumptions of daughter elements not being present, etc. I've always wondering how a global Flood would change or effect these.

As jwu said, there is little likelihood that a Flood would affect decay rates. You'll note that the Hypothesis we are examining here considers whether the Laws of Physics might have been different pre-Flood, of during the Flood. We can't really say, since part of the Hypothesis is that God changed things--like the aging of humans--with the Flood. However, the Flood Model specifies that the Laws of Physics were the same right after the Flood as they are now. If strata were deposited by the Flood, then their ages should be consistent with the age of the Flood.

At present, there is lots of evidence that radioactive decay rates cannot be altered by things we do to the radionuclides. Heating, cooling, freezing, etc have no effect. As jwu noted, measurements taken from supernovae give us measurements of decay rates from eons ago, and again we see no change.

The only way, at present, to imagine that decay rates, or other physical laws, have changed is to postulate that God caused the changes. There simply are no measurements that indicate that changes have occurred.

Therefore, since much evidence argues for constancy of the Laws of Physics (like radioactive decay), and no evidence suggests that these laws have changed, geologists use the inference from the evidence: that the laws have remained the same. They are not purposely using "evolutionist assumptions." They are using the inferences that the data themselves indicate.

seventil · Post by **seventil** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:22 am

Jose wrote: At present, there is lots of evidence that radioactive decay rates cannot be altered by things we do to the radionuclides. Heating, cooling, freezing, etc have no effect. As jwu noted, measurements taken from supernovae give us measurements of decay rates from eons ago, and again we see no change.

The only way, at present, to imagine that decay rates, or other physical laws, have changed is to postulate that God caused the changes. There simply are no measurements that indicate that changes have occurred.

Therefore, since much evidence argues for constancy of the Laws of Physics (like radioactive decay), and no evidence suggests that these laws have changed, geologists use the inference from the evidence: that the laws have remained the same. They are not purposely using "evolutionist assumptions." They are using the inferences that the data themselves indicate.

Jose/jwu - thanks for your replies.

Regarding catastrophic events changing the radionuclides: Could a significant change in the earth's magnetic field, atmospheric pressure, increase/decrease in UV or other extra-terrestrial energy - could any of that effect (significantly) the measuring of radio-isotopes? I've been researching this subject... I can't find anything reliable. Thanks in advance.

Therefore, since much evidence argues for constancy of the Laws of Physics (like radioactive decay), and no evidence suggests that these laws have changed, geologists use the inference from the evidence: that the laws have remained the same. They are not purposely using "evolutionist assumptions." They are using the inferences that the data themselves indicate.

I know I sounded a bit judgemental in my comment there; I guess what I really meant was that the classes I took, an alternate theory or idea was considered heresy. It's refreshing to see people that are interested in the truth, and not the vindication of their chosen theory.