Re: a simple test of Flood geology

Allen Roy (
Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:47:34 -0700 (MST)

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Glenn Morton wrote:
> I bet you can't set up a flume experiment to accomplish this on a small or
> large scale! Stokes law (which governs deposition) would predict that the
> smaller particles would take longer to be deposited. Forams and pollen are
> very small and if dropped into the ocean today would take 50 years to sink
> to the ocean floor. In the presence of turbulence, it takes even longer.
> thus the flood model, with its turbulence should predict the small
> microfossils to be preferentially be deposited last. The prediction does
> not meet expectations.

I have see flume experiments where turbidites of very fine matter laid
deposits in minutes, which under normal still water settling which Stokes
law describes would take a very long time. Stokes law is not the
problem. The problem is in conception. A fast moving flow of water will
carry a much heaver load of fines than the same volume of still water.
And when that fast flow of water is suddenly stopped, it will quickly
drop all the fines which could not be held in suspension by still (or
nearly) still water.

The sames hold true from carbonates. It is assumed that some limestones
were formed from disolved carbonates priciptation out of water. Ofcourse
this would take a long time. Or, that some limestones were the result of
calcarious remnants small sea creatures which slowly settled over long
periods of time. However, the carbonates need not be disolved in the
water but maybe globlets of carbonate muds caught temporarily in
suspension due to the turbulance of the water. These could then fall
quickly out when the waters lost enough energy to no longer be able to
hold the gloglets.

Allen Roy
Grand Canyon Creationary Geology Tours, see: