# Re: 14C (was Four Rivers Revisited)

Darryl W. Maddox (dpmaddox@arn.net)
Tue, 18 May 1999 08:44:18 -0500

--------------13CFC0490423E2A81A17B428
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Allen,

Your arguments would be more convincing if you had any math or physics
to back it up. Quantitative arguments are easy to evaluate but
qualitative ones make a poor argument. For instance how much is:
"large quantities of water", "large quantities of the rock bottom",
"large amounts of rock melt", "large amounts of solid rock". Without
knowing these things (and ignoring for the moment that your model
predicts things not found in the geologic record) how is anyone supposed
to evaluate these statements? Do you (or does anyone) have any computer
or other calculation based models for showing how many asteroids came
in, how much total energy was delivered over what period of time and
what effects that would have? Quantification is what separates science
from pseudo-science and other forms of daydreaming.

Darryl

Allen Roy wrote:

> > From: David Campbell <bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu>
> > 14C is created by cosmic rays zapping nitrogen in the atmosphere.
> The
> > Flood would not affect the rate of cosmic ray input from space.
> Especially
> > with asteroids splashing water around all over (and producing enough
> heat
> > to vaporize the water), the surficial oceanic 14C ratio will not be
> all
> > that drastically out of equilibrium with the atmosphere, so washing
> does
> > not get rid of it.
>
> As an astroid makes an surface explosion it would evaporate large
> quantities of water, and inject into all altitudes of the atmosphere
> large quantities of liquid water drops of all sizes. Also, depending
> upon the size of the asteroid and the depth of the waters, large
> quantities of the rock bottom would be evaporated and blasted into the
> atmosphere. Large quantities of rock melt would be also shot up into
> the atmosphere. And large amounts of solid rock from micrometer size
> to house sized would be blasted in to the atmosphere.
>
> Whatever atmospheric structure that existed before the asteroid storm
> would be violently disrupted over a period of time. Large amounts of
> water, water vapor, rock vapor, rock melt and rock dust would be
> injected into the atmosphere. The water vapor would condense on
> condensed rock vapor, cooled rock melt and rock dust. Such a large
> injection of water into the atmosphere would cause rain falls as
> torrents. Because of so much water suddenly in the atmosphere, large
> amounts of chemical reactions would occur, including an unprecedented
> use of the 14C in the high altitude. As a result the 14C would be
> largely washed out of the atmosphere. The rate of cosmic rays would
> not be affected, but the atmospheric equilibrium of 14C would be
> severely disrupted.
>
> The 14C would end up in the Flood waters and some of it would, by
> chemical reaction, become part of the deposition. Whatever was left
> would end up in the oceans following the Flood.
>
> > Do you think that the 14C cycle before the Flood was similar to the
> current
> > one? That would obviously affect the expected pattern.
>
> One might propose the pre-flood atmosphere was similar as now, but
> some clues indicate some kind of differences. There appears to have
> been no rain from clouds, but that everything was watered by
> condensation directly on plants. And there is mention of waters above
> the expanse. Just exactly how such things could be is not clear, but
> some have proposed a high altitude layer of water vapor which may
> have provided a greenhouse effect. The most recent thinking is that
> this would have been thin, invisible, layer. Just how that would
> affect the production of 14C is not known, but it is thought that it
> might reduce the amount made and restrict the diffusion of 14C
> downward through the atmosphere.
>
> > >It should be noted that Woodmorappe's proposal was developed before
> the
> > >current ideas of an Asteroid storm has become more popular in
> Creationary
> > >circles. However, even in such a model, it is not necessary that
> complete
> > >homogeneity occurred.
> > You do need homogeneity in your models to be credible, though.
>
> I would expect mixing to occur as mega-tsunami sweep by, but not
> expect a global homogeneity. I have been surfing in rainstorms that
> rained so hard that one could drink fresh water directly off the ocean
> surface for sometime (dozens of minutes) afterwards. Continuous rain
> for 150 days would put a layer of pretty much salt free water over
> much of the surface of the seas.
>
> > If there was extensive mixing, as would result from many popular
> flood
> > geology scenarios (any that involve extensive tectonic activity
> during a
> > short period of time, for example), then the isotopes should look
> similar
> > for any depth. If a large portion of the geologic column consists
> of
> > deposits formed during this time, then the organisms should have
> similar
> > ratios throughout. They don't.
>
> One would expect mixing of waters as mega-tsunami sweep over shallows
> and continents, but in deep water they would pass by nearly
> unnoticed. In the vicinity of water impacts, there would indeed be
> mixing, but it would not be expected globally. Nevertheless there
> would be some impact on the oceans and many organisms would die and be
> buried. The ratio of isotopes in the organisms would not reflect the
> condition of the seas at the time of their death in the catastrophe,
> but rather the conditions which they lived in just prior to the
> catastrophe. Thus one would not expect to find the ratios to reflect
> extensive mixing.
>
> > This also raises the issue of stable isotope stratigraphy, which I
> have not
> > yet seen addressed, much less answered, by flood geology models.
> Layers
> > deposited at the same time (as evidenced by biostratigraphy,
> radiometric
> > dating, magnetostratigraphy, etc.) have similar ratios of stable
> isotopes.
> > For example, the ratio of 13C to 12C shows gradual changes and some
> spikes
> > over time. These changes are worldwide. Ocean currents and winds
> must
> > have enough time to carry the elements around the world in order to
> produce
> > these patterns.
>
> The clouds of dust from individual impacts would cover the globe in
> days. Given multiple impacts per day for 150 days clouds of dust from
> different impacts and containing differing ratios of assortments of
> isotopes would be spreading around the globe and being rained down.
> The ratios would vary world wide in a short time and be incorporated
> into the series of sediments. The changes would reflect the ratio
> changes injected into the atmosphere by the series of impacts.
>
> Allen

--------------13CFC0490423E2A81A17B428
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Allen,

Your arguments would be more convincing if you had any math or physics to back it up.  Quantitative arguments are easy to evaluate but qualitative ones make a poor argument.  For instance how much is:  "large quantities of water",   "large quantities of the rock bottom", "large amounts of rock melt", "large amounts of solid rock".  Without knowing these things (and ignoring for the moment that your model predicts things not found in the geologic record) how is anyone supposed to evaluate these statements?  Do you (or does anyone) have any computer or other calculation based models for showing how many asteroids came in, how much total energy was delivered over what period of time and what effects that would have?  Quantification is what separates science from pseudo-science and other forms of daydreaming.

Darryl

Allen Roy wrote:

> From: David Campbell <bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu>
> 14C is created by cosmic rays zapping nitrogen in the atmosphere.  The
> Flood would not affect the rate of cosmic ray input from space.  Especially
> with asteroids splashing water around all over (and producing enough heat
> to vaporize the water), the surficial oceanic 14C ratio will not be all
> that drastically out of equilibrium with the atmosphere, so washing does
> not get rid of it.

As an astroid makes an surface explosion it would evaporate large quantities of water, and inject into all altitudes of the atmosphere large quantities of liquid water drops of all sizes.  Also,  depending upon the size of the asteroid and the depth of the waters, large quantities of the rock bottom would be evaporated and blasted into the atmosphere.  Large quantities of rock melt would be also shot up into the atmosphere.  And large amounts of solid rock from micrometer size to house sized would be blasted in to the atmosphere.

Whatever atmospheric structure that existed before the asteroid storm would be violently disrupted over a period of time.  Large amounts of water, water vapor, rock vapor, rock melt and rock dust would be injected into the atmosphere.  The water vapor would condense on condensed rock vapor, cooled rock melt and rock dust.  Such a large injection of water into the atmosphere would cause rain falls as torrents.  Because of so much water suddenly in the atmosphere, large amounts of chemical reactions would occur, including an unprecedented use of the 14C in the high altitude.  As a result the 14C would be largely washed out of the atmosphere.  The rate of cosmic rays would not be affected, but the atmospheric equilibrium of 14C would be severely disrupted.

The 14C would end up in the Flood waters and some of it would, by chemical reaction, become part of the deposition.  Whatever was left would end up in the oceans following the Flood.

> Do you think that the 14C cycle before the Flood was similar to the current
> one?  That would obviously affect the expected pattern.

One might propose the pre-flood atmosphere was similar as now, but some clues indicate some kind of differences.  There appears to have been no rain from clouds, but that everything was watered by condensation directly on plants.  And there is mention of waters above the expanse.  Just exactly how such things could be is not clear, but some have proposed a high altitude layer of water vapor  which may have provided a greenhouse effect.  The most recent thinking is that this would have been thin, invisible, layer.  Just how that would affect the production of 14C is not known, but it is thought that it might reduce the amount made and restrict the diffusion of 14C downward through the atmosphere.

> >It should be noted that Woodmorappe's proposal was developed before the
> >current ideas of an Asteroid storm has become more popular in Creationary
> >circles.  However, even in such a model, it is not necessary that complete
> >homogeneity occurred.
> You do need homogeneity in your models to be credible, though.

I would expect mixing to occur as mega-tsunami sweep by, but not expect a global homogeneity.  I have been surfing in rainstorms that rained so hard that one could drink fresh water directly off the ocean surface for sometime (dozens of minutes) afterwards.  Continuous rain for 150 days would put a layer of pretty much salt free water over much of the surface of the seas.

> If there was extensive mixing, as would result from many popular flood
> geology scenarios (any that involve extensive tectonic activity during a
> short period of time, for example), then the isotopes should look similar
> for any depth.  If a large portion of the geologic column consists of
> deposits formed during this time, then the organisms should have similar
> ratios throughout.  They don't.

One would expect mixing of waters as mega-tsunami sweep over shallows and continents, but in deep water they would pass by nearly unnoticed.  In the vicinity of water impacts, there would indeed be mixing, but it would not be expected globally.  Nevertheless there would be some impact on the oceans and many organisms would die and be buried.  The ratio of isotopes in the organisms would not reflect the condition of the seas at the time of their death in the catastrophe, but rather the conditions which they lived in just prior to the catastrophe.  Thus one would not expect to find the ratios to reflect extensive mixing.

> This also raises the issue of stable isotope stratigraphy, which I have not
> yet seen addressed, much less answered, by flood geology models.  Layers
> deposited at the same time (as evidenced by biostratigraphy, radiometric
> dating, magnetostratigraphy, etc.) have similar ratios of stable isotopes.
> For example, the ratio of 13C to 12C shows gradual changes and some spikes
> over time.  These changes are worldwide.  Ocean currents and winds must
> have enough time to carry the elements around the world in order to produce
> these patterns.

The clouds of dust from individual impacts would cover the globe in days.  Given multiple impacts per day for 150 days clouds of dust from different impacts and containing differing ratios of assortments of isotopes would be spreading around the globe and being rained down.  The ratios would vary world wide in a short time and be incorporated into the series of sediments.  The changes would reflect the ratio changes injected into the atmosphere by the series of impacts.

Allen

--------------13CFC0490423E2A81A17B428--