Re: 14C (was Four Rivers Revisited)

David Campbell (
Tue, 18 May 1999 18:03:30 -0400

>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.

All this would be rather inimical to any living thing, including those on
the ark, and would disrupt the layering of water necessary for
Woodemoreappe's suggestion of how aquatic animals of different salinity
tolerances could survive.

To account for the observed pattern in a shorter period of time, the
production of 14C would have to be significantly lower in the past (in
addition to the problem of no evidence for rapid change in 14C). Unless
the rate of cosmic ray input was lower (less of a problem for you than for
anyone who claims the universe is a few thousand years old), the only way
to do this would be to decrease either the supply of nitrogen (and drastic
changes in atmospheric gas concentrations would be rather harmful to most
organisms, such as plants and animals) or decrease the amount of
interaction between cosmic rays and nitrogen, presumably by increasing the
amount of atmospheric blocking (e.g., the ozone layer). I do not see how
this scenario achieves any of the above methods.

>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.

This won't change the 14C ratio in what was deposited, which is what you
are trying to explain, and carbon exchange between the atmosphere and ocean
surface waters is fairly rapid, so that washing it into the ocean does not
get rid of it for long.

>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.

Such a layer would allow freshwater organisms to survive, but would
suffocate the shallow marine fauna. Noah would need a lot of aquaria.

>> 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 does not explain the change in organisms through the stratigraphic
column nor the isotopic changes through the column between organisms from a
given depth.

>> This also raises the issue of stable isotope stratigraphy, which I have
>> 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
>> For example, the ratio of 13C to 12C shows gradual changes and some
>> over time. These changes are worldwide. Ocean currents and winds must
>> have enough time to carry the elements around the world in order to
>> 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.

Not if the isotopes reflect the environments where the animals were living
prior to the Flood. You need to develop an internally consistent model to
be credible.

The isotopic ratios of various kinds of meteorites, etc. are known, so it
woud be possible to estimate what sort of effect this model should have.

David C.