RE: Four Rivers Revisited

Vandergraaf, Chuck (
Mon, 3 May 1999 16:35:09 -0400

Earlier today, I composed a brief note expressing my concern that some of
the correspondents appear to be wading into areas outside their scientific
expertise. I didn't send it because I was uncomfortable with the tone of
that note. I don't want to offend anybody because we are all trying to serve
the Lord in our own way. I think that Steve has expressed my sentiment
quite well in that one must operate within an acceptable data set. I would
add to that "accepted theories." By now, C14 age dating has pretty well
been accepted, within its limitations. So have U-series disequilibria and
other radiometric dating techniques.

I find it curious that, to some, the validity of a technique or theory is
judged by their interpretation of the Scriptures. In other words, if the
method can be used to support a strongly held interpretation, it is valid,
if not, it is suspect. Sort of a "pick and choose" approach. Small wonder
if, collectively, we don't come across as very credible.

Chuck Vandergraaf
Pinawa, MB

> ----------
> From: Steven H. Schimmrich[]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 2:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Four Rivers Revisited
> Allan Roy wrote:
> >
> > I was trying to make the point that if the sediment was lain by water
> > deposition, then one would not need fluids to percolate through the
> > sediment because the sediments would already be highly saturated with
> > fluids containing the cementing minerals in solution. The fluids would
> > eventually leave the sediment (percolate out?) leaving it cemented
> > together.
> Let's turn this into a scientific discussion rather than armchair
> hypothesizing.
> You claim that most if not all Phanerozoic sedimentary rocks were
> deposited during a single, geologically-recent global flood. The clastic
> rocks were cemented together by minerals present in the flood waters as
> these water-saturated sediments accumulated.
> Perhaps you'd like to discuss the extensive literature on sedimentary
> diagenesis. I would particularly like to know, for example, how trace
> element analysis, cathodoluminescense examination, fluid inclusion
> analysis, and oxygen and strontium isotopic values (among other things)
> support your hypothesis.
> It's easy to come up with hypothetical scenarios when you're not
> constrained
> by data. If you, or other "flood geologists", can't defend your ideas
> with
> field work and laboratory analyses, you're simply not doing science in my
> opinion (and, I would dare to add, in the opinion of virtually all other
> geologists I know).
> - Steve.
> --
> Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology
> Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies
> Calvin College, 3201 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
> (office), (home)
> 616-957-7053 (voice mail), 616-957-6501 (fax)