Re: Precambrian Geology (1)

Glenn R. Morton (
Fri, 23 Apr 1999 21:53:46 -0500

Allen Roy wrote:
> > From: Glenn R. Morton <>
> > {snip} So Allen must explain
> > how a global flood was able to sort microscopic animals by their
> > decorations. Since these things are so small, turbulence and currents
> > will take them along for the ride. A turbulent global flood should have
> > thoroughly mixed these animals up. But they aren't mixed up. The only
> > explanation is that the animals represent different animals in the ocean
> > when the verious rock layers were deposited.
> It appears to me that your concept of the Flood is as if one were to take a
> glass, put in some sand and gravel and fill it with water and shake the
> whole mess for a while, then let it set and see what settles out. This may
> indeed be the concept of some YECs also, however, the latest thinking in
> Flood catastrophism involves a series of asteroid impacts which set up
> mega-tsunami (impanami?) which sweep ashore with high erosion near the
> impact site and wide deposition as the wave energy depletes. Thus the
> depositions contain what was near the impact sites and do not represent
> what was setteling out of a single large mass of homogenously mixed water
> load.

Are you aware that tsunami deposits are largely UNSORTED rubble with
particles of all sizes? That is NOT what we see in the geologic
column. We see excellently sorted particles, and microscopic fossils
sorted by either their shape or their exterior patterning on the tests
(shells). Why only animals with certain patterns are deposited at one
period during the flood remains a realy mystery to me and was one of the
things that eventually led me away from YECism.
> Since flooding mega-tsunami could only occure by impacts in large bodies of
> water, one would expect that the first depositions would contain primarily
> marine life.

Why could astroids only hit the water? Did the land have asteroid
blasting lasers that kept them at bay? Anti-asteroid cream? And
besides, the large tsunamis, come on shore rapidly and bury LAND animals
(and drag some of them out to sea). The land and marine animals should
be mixed up in this model. Hundreds of New Guineans were sucked into
the sea after their tsunami.

As the mega-tsuanmi sweep inland (several waves would
> generate from a single impact and each would follow the previous one ashore
> before the first had time to drain back off) more and more land would be
> innundated.

So where are all the land animals that are on land when the first waves
hit the beach. YOur model should predicts a fossil order of 1. land
animals 2. marine animals. This is backwards to what we see.

Following impacts on continental areas now covered by
> mega-tsunami distributed waters would start making depositions of land
> based plants and animals. The more moble animals (and birds) would be
> fleeing the mega-tunami for higher ground thus being (in general) the later
> ones to begin to be deposited. Body boyancy would also play a part, but
> not likely a major part. At this time, more detailed explanations that may
> account for the apparent ordering are lacking. But time will tell.
> Just how this model can explain the deposition of forams, nannoplankton and
> diatoms as described, I don't know at this time. But, in my optimism for
> the model, I expect an explanation can be found.

YOu are an unusually(unreasonably/blindly) optimistic fellow. You are
suggesting that NO explanation is a reason to believe your view.


Foundation,Fall and Flood Adam, Apes and Anthropology