Lets do some math here. The column I described is the entire geologic
column in that part of the world. It works out that during the year of the
flood, only .65 meter was deposited there per day. This means that the
dinosaur footprints at the top of the Boonton formation was deposited at the
end of the Flood year. Are you suggesting that the dinosaurs swam for a
year in order to leave their footprints? What did they eat? When did they
sleep? Why didn't they drown when they slept?
> Were all of the roots vertical?
>Where they occational single roots? Were they clumps of roots. It used
>to be that vertical tree stumps were thought to be insitu trees.
These are not trees, they are roots of plants.
> All the
>vertically standing logs and stumps on the bottom of Spirit Lake by Mt.
>Saint Hellens prove that wrong. 'Vertical' root may be no different.
>I'm not going to sweat much about this one.
You don't sweat about much do you.
>> Who is your authority that tsunami deposits will explain the geologic
>> column? Cite a scientific journal please.
>HA! HA! HA!, heheheh. That's rich!!! Would you really expect a
>uniformitarian to stretch his mind so much as to envision such a thing?!!!
>There has been a revolution in geology since the discovery of turbidites. I
>have read that a large portion of strata has been reinterpreted as
As a former Young earth creationist, who published 20+ articles in the
Creation Research Society quarterly, I used to feel as you do. What I found
was that the data didn't support what I was being told by YEC geologists.
Now. If you can't cite a source for this info, then how do you know it is true?
> I expect that as more catastrophist geologists look
>again the the depoists we may see tsunami-like interpretation of strata.
You expect???? You mean no one has done it? I didn't know you could see the
future so clearly. What is the stock market going to do today?
>Hehehe...from a uniformitarian scientific journal!!!!! Ha! Ha!
Obviously, you are not a very serious student of geology.
>> I notice that you have yet to explain the details of the geologic column on
>> my web page. I asked specifically for you to explain how the salt could be
>> deposited in the middle of the flood in North Dakota. But it is also found
>> in the middle of the geologic column in Michigan, New York, Kansas Europe
>> and many other places. Also you haven't explained whether the pollen we
>> discussed was flattened, what color it was etc. Let's talk about the issues
>> you raised first before you change the subject rapidly.
>I have downloaded your large web file and have begun making comments.
>Rome wasn't built in a day. Sheesh.
>The only ones who can tell you if the pollen was flattened or not were
>the original researchers. Since one is a close personal friend of yours,
>give him a call.
This is interesting. You are acting like the pollen proves your point but
you can't answer questions about the work. Obviously you have a lot of
faith in the men who performed this work, even though the work was not their
area of expertise. Would you call me to treat cancer in a family member? I
doubt it. so why trust a non-expert when they jump out of their field for
one single experiment?
You have a lot of faith in those men, not God, those men.
Foundation, Fall and Flood