One of the significant parts of the Creation Model (CM) is that a world-wide flood occurred. This flood covered the entire world. Naturally, many questions arise out of this:
How can a world-wide flood feasibly happen?
Where did all the water come from?
Where did all the water go?
What significance does it have on the CM?
What evidence are there of a global flood?
Global Flood
Moderator: Moderators
Post #61
I apologize if this has been dealt with elsewhere. I searched, but could not find anything similar.
How does the Flood Model deal with the Grand Canyon?
It can't have been made before as it is carved out of layers that the flood is supposed to be responsible for.
It can't have been made during for the same reason.
It can't have been made after due to the condensed timetable that the CM requires. There is simply not enough time for the Canyon to have formed in its current condition.
So how did it get there?
How does the Flood Model deal with the Grand Canyon?
It can't have been made before as it is carved out of layers that the flood is supposed to be responsible for.
It can't have been made during for the same reason.
It can't have been made after due to the condensed timetable that the CM requires. There is simply not enough time for the Canyon to have formed in its current condition.
So how did it get there?
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20853
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
- Contact:
Post #62
This topic has not been discussed yet. I've created another topic so that we can discuss this in its own thread - The Grand Canyon.Gaunt wrote:I apologize if this has been dealt with elsewhere. I searched, but could not find anything similar.
How does the Flood Model deal with the Grand Canyon?
Post #63
Otseng--
OK…we discussed, in the Creation in the Classroom thread, that specific issues concerning various of the Creation issues might best be discussed in their appropriate threads. So, I enter into this one, which is one of the first you mentioned for classroom use.
First, I'll summarize my thoughts on much of what has been said so far: I think it is moot whether pre-flood conditions were, or were not as suggested in the model. Since it was pre-flood, and since the model is based on things being different, we must accept that things were different. Instead, we must evaluate the model by a scientific method.
Much of what you have said, and what Walt Brown said (your primary source) represents what might be called "a plausible scenario" (plausible if we make certain assumptions, such as the world being very different then than it is now). Thus, it falls under the scientific definition of "hypothesis," not "theory." This may be semantic splitting of hairs, but it is important if we are to discuss things using common terminology.
The thing to do now 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." This approach misses the fact that other hypotheses may also explain it. [As a digression, I used to teach a course for first-year graduate students in which we analyzed research papers, to find where, if at all, there were fatal flaws. One of my favorites was one that did just this. It proposed a model, then described a variety of experiments, and for each one, concluded that "this can be explained by the model." What it did not do was evaluate the data according to the model that we now know is correct. The authors were completely misled by their confidence in their model. The same scientists have done excellent work in other areas, which shows that being "wedded to one's model" can affect us all.]
The more appropriate approach is to say: "OK, here's our hypothesis. It makes these very clear predictions. Let us now see if those predictions are met." We may need to do experiments to test the predictions, or we may be able to go into the world and look, or we may be able to go to the literature and see if someone else has already done the work. Regardless of the hypothesis, this is what makes the approach scientific.
So, as I see it, your hypothesis is this:
1. Water welled up from the earth's interior, providing sufficient water to cover the surface.
2. This caused the ocean ridges, and pushed the crust enough to thrust up the high mountains.
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.
5. Plants and animals were covered by sediments, and subsequently fossilized.
6. Large canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, were carved by the rapid retreat of the flood waters while the sediments were still soft enough to erode quickly.
7. 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.
8. Different kinds of fossils ended up in different strata due to differential rates of sinking; and of course, some of the animals could run uphill to escape the rising waters. i.e. the model called "hydrogical sorting of ecological niches."
9. The flood covered 100% of the earth's surface, including the mountains, and receded only after complete destruction of everything that was not on the ark (or could swim, or otherwise survive such a catastrophe).
Fine. Here's a hypothesis. If it explains the way the world is now, its predictions should all be met. Let's make a few. Feel free to tell me if I've got 'em wrong.
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. Except for those areas that were rapidly eroded, and especially in low-lying areas, all of the earth's surface should be covered with sediments from the flood.
3. 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.
4. No footprints of land animals should be found in strata eroded by the receding flood waters.
5. The rock strata should be consistently variable, with more rapidly-sedimenting material at the bottom of the geological column, and more slowly-sedimenting material at the top. There should be very few instances of repeating series of rock types.
There are other predictions as well, but these will get us started.
Since the easiet 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. Are there locations in the world, especially low-lying areas, with very different kinds of rocks on the surface?
3. Are there any instances of similar fossils in widely separated strata? A good example might be bivalves (brachiopods, oysters, etc) of similar sizes.
4. Are there footprints in any rock layers that cannot have been exposed before the flood occurred?
5. Are there any examples of repeated sedimentation patterns--like hundreds of repeats of alternating limestone and shale in very deep canyons?
Let's see where this leads us. The hypothesis is clear, the predictions are clear. I don't think that it is really the best thing for me to look up the data, since it's your hypothesis, and a good scientist always tries to disprove their own hypothesis before taking it public. So…if you look through the data of which you are aware, or that have been published in the scientific literature, how do these predictions bear out?
Best of luck--let me know what you find.
--Jose
OK…we discussed, in the Creation in the Classroom thread, that specific issues concerning various of the Creation issues might best be discussed in their appropriate threads. So, I enter into this one, which is one of the first you mentioned for classroom use.
First, I'll summarize my thoughts on much of what has been said so far: I think it is moot whether pre-flood conditions were, or were not as suggested in the model. Since it was pre-flood, and since the model is based on things being different, we must accept that things were different. Instead, we must evaluate the model by a scientific method.
Much of what you have said, and what Walt Brown said (your primary source) represents what might be called "a plausible scenario" (plausible if we make certain assumptions, such as the world being very different then than it is now). Thus, it falls under the scientific definition of "hypothesis," not "theory." This may be semantic splitting of hairs, but it is important if we are to discuss things using common terminology.
The thing to do now 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." This approach misses the fact that other hypotheses may also explain it. [As a digression, I used to teach a course for first-year graduate students in which we analyzed research papers, to find where, if at all, there were fatal flaws. One of my favorites was one that did just this. It proposed a model, then described a variety of experiments, and for each one, concluded that "this can be explained by the model." What it did not do was evaluate the data according to the model that we now know is correct. The authors were completely misled by their confidence in their model. The same scientists have done excellent work in other areas, which shows that being "wedded to one's model" can affect us all.]
The more appropriate approach is to say: "OK, here's our hypothesis. It makes these very clear predictions. Let us now see if those predictions are met." We may need to do experiments to test the predictions, or we may be able to go into the world and look, or we may be able to go to the literature and see if someone else has already done the work. Regardless of the hypothesis, this is what makes the approach scientific.
So, as I see it, your hypothesis is this:
1. Water welled up from the earth's interior, providing sufficient water to cover the surface.
2. This caused the ocean ridges, and pushed the crust enough to thrust up the high mountains.
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.
5. Plants and animals were covered by sediments, and subsequently fossilized.
6. Large canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, were carved by the rapid retreat of the flood waters while the sediments were still soft enough to erode quickly.
7. 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.
8. Different kinds of fossils ended up in different strata due to differential rates of sinking; and of course, some of the animals could run uphill to escape the rising waters. i.e. the model called "hydrogical sorting of ecological niches."
9. The flood covered 100% of the earth's surface, including the mountains, and receded only after complete destruction of everything that was not on the ark (or could swim, or otherwise survive such a catastrophe).
Fine. Here's a hypothesis. If it explains the way the world is now, its predictions should all be met. Let's make a few. Feel free to tell me if I've got 'em wrong.
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. Except for those areas that were rapidly eroded, and especially in low-lying areas, all of the earth's surface should be covered with sediments from the flood.
3. 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.
4. No footprints of land animals should be found in strata eroded by the receding flood waters.
5. The rock strata should be consistently variable, with more rapidly-sedimenting material at the bottom of the geological column, and more slowly-sedimenting material at the top. There should be very few instances of repeating series of rock types.
There are other predictions as well, but these will get us started.
Since the easiet 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. Are there locations in the world, especially low-lying areas, with very different kinds of rocks on the surface?
3. Are there any instances of similar fossils in widely separated strata? A good example might be bivalves (brachiopods, oysters, etc) of similar sizes.
4. Are there footprints in any rock layers that cannot have been exposed before the flood occurred?
5. Are there any examples of repeated sedimentation patterns--like hundreds of repeats of alternating limestone and shale in very deep canyons?
Let's see where this leads us. The hypothesis is clear, the predictions are clear. I don't think that it is really the best thing for me to look up the data, since it's your hypothesis, and a good scientist always tries to disprove their own hypothesis before taking it public. So…if you look through the data of which you are aware, or that have been published in the scientific literature, how do these predictions bear out?
Best of luck--let me know what you find.
--Jose
Post #64
I know we're not supposed to post with brief "you go!" messages... so I'll lengthen this one 
Huzzah! While I think that it is of tremendous importance to discuss all of the general issues which are discussed within this forum, in terms of having a substantive debate this is what's needed: A clear and concise description of a given model, a list of what that model predicts, and a place to discuss the initial propositions, the logical conclusions, the weight of the evidence, etc.
Thanks for systematizing things!
I had a few questions regarding proposition 1:
If water is supposed to have welled up from the earth's interior, where did it go?
If the sum total of water in the atmosphere and water frozen in the ice-caps added to the liquid water on earth wouldn't be enough to allow for proposition 10 (which I believe it wouldn't be), then it seems that either:
1) Enough of the water must have gone back into the earth to account for the "missing" water
2) Said portion of water must have gone somewhere else
3) The water must no longer be around (perhaps having separated into constituent atoms of hydrogen and oxygen).
If (1): How would that quantity of water being still under the earth's crust relate to modern geoscience? Does it seem reasonable/feasiblel?
If (2) or (3), this must have either
A) Left a hollow within the earth where this water came from
or
B) caused portions of the earth to "collapse in".
Can either (A) or (B) be supported? are there other options?
(It seems to me that (B), if tenable, could help account for why some surface rocks are older than the flood: The surface collapsed inwards after the water was released. If this approach were taken, it would give yet another measurable prediction: Do the quantities of older rock match the amount that would be revealed from a collapse caused by the "hollowing out" of a portion of the earth under the crust, presuming a quantity of water sufficient to cover the earth entirely?)
Huzzah! While I think that it is of tremendous importance to discuss all of the general issues which are discussed within this forum, in terms of having a substantive debate this is what's needed: A clear and concise description of a given model, a list of what that model predicts, and a place to discuss the initial propositions, the logical conclusions, the weight of the evidence, etc.
Thanks for systematizing things!
I had a few questions regarding proposition 1:
If water is supposed to have welled up from the earth's interior, where did it go?
If the sum total of water in the atmosphere and water frozen in the ice-caps added to the liquid water on earth wouldn't be enough to allow for proposition 10 (which I believe it wouldn't be), then it seems that either:
1) Enough of the water must have gone back into the earth to account for the "missing" water
2) Said portion of water must have gone somewhere else
3) The water must no longer be around (perhaps having separated into constituent atoms of hydrogen and oxygen).
If (1): How would that quantity of water being still under the earth's crust relate to modern geoscience? Does it seem reasonable/feasiblel?
If (2) or (3), this must have either
A) Left a hollow within the earth where this water came from
or
B) caused portions of the earth to "collapse in".
Can either (A) or (B) be supported? are there other options?
(It seems to me that (B), if tenable, could help account for why some surface rocks are older than the flood: The surface collapsed inwards after the water was released. If this approach were taken, it would give yet another measurable prediction: Do the quantities of older rock match the amount that would be revealed from a collapse caused by the "hollowing out" of a portion of the earth under the crust, presuming a quantity of water sufficient to cover the earth entirely?)
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20853
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
- Contact:
Post #65
Jose wrote:
Much of what you have said, and what Walt Brown said (your primary source) represents what might be called "a plausible scenario" (plausible if we make certain assumptions, such as the world being very different then than it is now). Thus, it falls under the scientific definition of "hypothesis," not "theory." This may be semantic splitting of hairs, but it is important if we are to discuss things using common terminology.
I appreciate you taking this debate to a higher level by enforcing a more rigorous defense of the arguments.
I will try to respond to your requests and present predictions and evidence to support those predictions as well as comment on the predictions you mentioned. But, I will have to do that in future postings in that my freetime has become much more limited recently.
BTW, how do all you people have the time to produce such thoughtful and lengthy posts?
All of you are certainly raising the bar of debates here!Post #66
8) That's easy! It feeds my already ample desire to procrastinate on doing work!otseng wrote: BTW, how do all you people have the time to produce such thoughtful and lengthy posts?
(That and working from home, taking this year primarily for writing, and liking the calibre of the discussion that goes on here).
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20853
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
- Contact:
Post #68
OK, I've come up with some predictions off the top of my head. I have not gone into researching if there are evidence for or against these predictions yet, but I just wanted to get the discussion going. Some of these predictions might be impossible to have any evidence for or against right now, but I just want to throw them out anyways.
I will post evidence that supports these predictions in subsequent posts.
So, here are my flood hypothesis predictions:
1. Hydrocarbons should only be found in the lower layers.
The global flood is hypothesized to occur over a short period of time, measured in months rather than millenniums. Everything was rapidly buried in a short span. So hydrocarbons could not have built up in successive layers over a long period of time.
2. There should be a greater amount of fossils found at the bottom than the top.
This is related to prediction 1. You would expect a global flood to rapidly bury what was on the surface of the earth. There should not be a uniform distribution of fossils found in all the layers.
3. Most coal/oil deposits should be large rather than small.
If the flood was global, everything would get buried at one time. So, it would be expected that coal and oil deposits would be large rather than small discrete clumps scattered throughout the strata.
4. There would be no layers (of any significance) found under the layers formed by the flood.
Generally, the layers formed by the flood start at the Cambrian layer. If the layers were all formed by the flood, then there should be no layers found not formed by the flood.
5. Rock strata would basically be parallel to each other (though large sections could be bent/fractured/displaced) all over the world.
If the flood formed the rock strata and the flood was global, we should see parallel layers all over the earth. Also, when I say parallel, I mean parallel to each other, not necessarily parallel to the horizon.
6. If we can take the cross sections of mountains, they should look like bent parallel layers.
In the FM, the mountains were formed after the sediments were layed down. So, the mountains should have evidence of parallel layers.
7. Marine fossils should not be limited to certain strata, but might be found throughout the layers layed down by the flood, including all the mountain ranges.
If the flood was global, then one would expect to find marine artifacts even on top of mountain ranges.
8. There should be pockets of water found when digging to the basalt where the subterranean water once was.
The major source of the water in the flood came from beneath the crust. One would expect to find some leftover water still there.
9. Stratifications could occur in localized floods.
If stratification occurred over a period of months in the global flood, one would expect that stratification can happen now in local floods.
10. Canyons will primarily only be found near mountain ranges.
The origin of canyons is explained in the FM by water receding as the mountain ranges were formed. So, canyons should primarily be found there.
11. There should be little, if any, strata found near the mid-Oceanic ridge.
The mid-Oceanic ridge was where the crust split apart and water came out of the earth. Sediments would not be able to accumulate there since water was coming out of the earth at that point.
12. There will never be a time again in which land animals will grow to the size of the dinosaurs.
Admittedly, we might never be able to demonstrate this. But, since the entire climate and atmosphere was significantly altered during the flood, the conditions that allowed land animals to grow large was removed.
I will post evidence that supports these predictions in subsequent posts.
So, here are my flood hypothesis predictions:
1. Hydrocarbons should only be found in the lower layers.
The global flood is hypothesized to occur over a short period of time, measured in months rather than millenniums. Everything was rapidly buried in a short span. So hydrocarbons could not have built up in successive layers over a long period of time.
2. There should be a greater amount of fossils found at the bottom than the top.
This is related to prediction 1. You would expect a global flood to rapidly bury what was on the surface of the earth. There should not be a uniform distribution of fossils found in all the layers.
3. Most coal/oil deposits should be large rather than small.
If the flood was global, everything would get buried at one time. So, it would be expected that coal and oil deposits would be large rather than small discrete clumps scattered throughout the strata.
4. There would be no layers (of any significance) found under the layers formed by the flood.
Generally, the layers formed by the flood start at the Cambrian layer. If the layers were all formed by the flood, then there should be no layers found not formed by the flood.
5. Rock strata would basically be parallel to each other (though large sections could be bent/fractured/displaced) all over the world.
If the flood formed the rock strata and the flood was global, we should see parallel layers all over the earth. Also, when I say parallel, I mean parallel to each other, not necessarily parallel to the horizon.
6. If we can take the cross sections of mountains, they should look like bent parallel layers.
In the FM, the mountains were formed after the sediments were layed down. So, the mountains should have evidence of parallel layers.
7. Marine fossils should not be limited to certain strata, but might be found throughout the layers layed down by the flood, including all the mountain ranges.
If the flood was global, then one would expect to find marine artifacts even on top of mountain ranges.
8. There should be pockets of water found when digging to the basalt where the subterranean water once was.
The major source of the water in the flood came from beneath the crust. One would expect to find some leftover water still there.
9. Stratifications could occur in localized floods.
If stratification occurred over a period of months in the global flood, one would expect that stratification can happen now in local floods.
10. Canyons will primarily only be found near mountain ranges.
The origin of canyons is explained in the FM by water receding as the mountain ranges were formed. So, canyons should primarily be found there.
11. There should be little, if any, strata found near the mid-Oceanic ridge.
The mid-Oceanic ridge was where the crust split apart and water came out of the earth. Sediments would not be able to accumulate there since water was coming out of the earth at that point.
12. There will never be a time again in which land animals will grow to the size of the dinosaurs.
Admittedly, we might never be able to demonstrate this. But, since the entire climate and atmosphere was significantly altered during the flood, the conditions that allowed land animals to grow large was removed.
Post #69
Hello Otseng, I was gone for a while, but I'm back now...
BTW, how long does it take for decaying plant/animal matter to turn into coal or oil? I don't know - what do various experts say?
Yes, but water could arrive there in any number of ways, so I'm not sure how relevant this prediction is.
And I would like to suggest some addenda, off the top of my head.otseng wrote:OK, I've come up with some predictions off the top of my head.
Furthermore, there would be no layering of hydrocarbons with rock. All HC deposits should be at the same layer.1. Hydrocarbons should only be found in the lower layers.
The global flood is hypothesized to occur over a short period of time, measured in months rather than millenniums. Everything was rapidly buried in a short span. So hydrocarbons could not have built up in successive layers over a long period of time.
BTW, how long does it take for decaying plant/animal matter to turn into coal or oil? I don't know - what do various experts say?
Might there not also be many fossils in the topmost layer? Without getting too graphic, I think a lot of bodies would float for some time - a lot would depend sedimentation rates of other materials.2. There should be a greater amount of fossils found at the bottom than the top.
This is related to prediction 1. You would expect a global flood to rapidly bury what was on the surface of the earth. There should not be a uniform distribution of fossils found in all the layers.
As scavengers of these deposits, we naturally focus on the large ones - normally geologists don't waste much time going after small deposits. It would be interesting to hear the experts on this - by this, I mean geologists with experience in locating and evaluating such deposits.3. Most coal/oil deposits should be large rather than small.
If the flood was global, everything would get buried at one time. So, it would be expected that coal and oil deposits would be large rather than small discrete clumps scattered throughout the stratas.
How do you determine the earliest post-flood layer? You can't just pick the bottom one and say, "This is where the flood started depositing." What evidence would indicate such a layer?4. There would be no layers (of any signficance) found under the layers formed by the flood.
Generally, the layers formed by the flood start at the Cambrian layer. If the layers were all formed by the flood, then there should be no layers found not formed by the flood.
I'm not aware of ANY geological theory that would posit non-parallel layers.5. Rock stratas would basically be parallel to each other (though large sections could be bent/fractured/displaced) all over the world.
If the flood formed the rock stratas and the flood was global, we should see parallel layers all over the earth. Also, when I say parallel, I mean parallel to each other, not necessarily parallel to the horizon.
Furthermore, all such layers would be sedimentary rock. It would be extremely rare to find igneous rock at or near the surface, except in areas of volcanic activity.6. If we can take the cross sections of mountains, they should look like bent parallel layers.
In the FM, the mountains were formed after the sediments were layed down. So, the mountains should have evidence of parallel layers.
One would also expect to find fossils of all the fresh-water species which would have been obliterated, never to return.7. Marine fossils should not be limited to certain stratas, but might be found throughout the layers layed down by the flood, including all the mountain ranges.
If the flood was global, then one would expect to find marine artifacts even on top of mountain ranges.
8. There should be pockets of water found when digging to the basalt where the subterranean water once was.
The major source of the water in the flood came from beneath the crust. One would expect to find some leftover water still there.
Yes, but water could arrive there in any number of ways, so I'm not sure how relevant this prediction is.
Not sure how to test this one.9. Stratifications could occur in localized floods.
If stratification occurred over a period of months in the global flood, one would expect that stratification can happen now in local floods.
Shouldn't there also be canyons related to virtually every watershed? Why is there no Mississippi River Canyon?10. Canyons will primarily only be found near mountain ranges.
The origin of canyons is explained in the FM by water receding as the mountain ranges were formed. So, canyons should primarily be found there.
Has anyone drilled core samples at such locations? What did they find? And how did they explain or analyse their findings?11. There should be little, if any, stratas found near the mid-Oceanic ridge.
The mid-Oceanic ridge was where the crust split apart and water came out of the earth. Sediments would not be able to accumulate there since water was coming out of the earth at that point.
I think that's enough for now. I have some other serious objections to your model, primarily due to 3-d geometric considerations. That'll be a later post.12. There will never be a time again in which land animals will grow to the size of the dinosaurs.
Admittedly, we might never be able to demonstrate this. But, since the entire climate and atmosphere was significantly altered during the flood, the conditions that allowed land animals to grow large was removed.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20853
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
- Contact:
Post #70
Jose wrote:
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.
I can accept this.
2. Except for those areas that were rapidly eroded, and especially in low-lying areas, all of the earth's surface should be covered with sediments from the flood.
I would generally agree with this. One exception I can think of is the area near the mid-Oceanic ridge. Since water would be ejected out of the earth at that point, sediments wouldn't be able to settle as much there.
3. 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.
I don't believe that all the layers in a geologic column were necessarily laid down at one time. It could have been laid down through several stages over a period of weeks/months. And each stage could have gone through sorting independently of other stages.
4. No footprints of land animals should be found in strata eroded by the receding flood waters.
I'm not sure if I would agree with this one. All the layers formed prior to the waters receding.
5. The rock strata should be consistently variable, with more rapidly-sedimenting material at the bottom of the geological column, and more slowly-sedimenting material at the top. There should be very few instances of repeating series of rock types.
I would disagree based on #3 above.
