Re: heat problem

From: glenn morton (
Date: Fri Aug 04 2000 - 18:43:17 EDT

  • Next message: Diane Roy: "Re: Heat Problem?"

    At 10:37 PM 8/3/00 -0700, Diane Roy wrote:
    >From: glenn morton
    >GRM: You can't ignore the fact that the salt found sandwiched in the
    >sedimentary rocks MUST have come from the flood waters if your theory is
    >AR: I admit that salt in the sedimentary rocks is problematic for
    >Creationary catastrophists at this point. However, that is no reason to
    >jump ship yet. I expect that explantions will be forth coming. ( I realize
    >that you are extremly skeptical)

    I very much appreciate the honesty here, that this is a problem. Few
    creationists really admit that that is a problem. Thank you. The only
    comment I would have is that if one must constantly have faith that the
    future will solve the worst problems, then maybe one should look for
    another solution.

    >GRM: It wasn't totally homogenous, but salt, as you might have observed, is
    >soluble in water. IF the salt found in the sedimentary column every touched
    >the flood waters, it would dissolve. And you are being inconsistent here.
    >Those who believe in the global flood talk about how destructive and
    >erosive the initial stages were, how they eroded the continents to nubbins
    >yet here you don't want the flood to have eroded and added the salt to the
    >water's salinity. You can't have it both ways Allen.
    >AR: The erosion of continents and deposition would only occurr on the
    >continents, because the tsunami pass over the deep ocean with out much
    >effect. It is only when the waves "feel" bottom that they build up into
    >monsters that crash ashore stripping the shallow sea and coastal low lands.
    >As the wave begins it's run-up on the land it continually looses energy.
    >Finally it slows to a stop, then it slowly begins to retreat. Deposition
    >will occurr the whole time it looses energy and during run off, only when
    >the wave reaches a high enough speed will it begin to strip of part of its
    >former deposition. The net result is that large deposition is made on the
    >land. If a wave is big enough so that is completely passes over the land
    >and enters the ocean again it will quickly loose its energy as the bottom
    >dropps away. Deposition will occure primarily close to the shoreline or the
    >edge of the continent. Thus, there will lots of erosion and deposition on
    >the continents, but not much deposition (mostly fines) in the deep oceans.

    But this is not what we see. The Anadarko basin of Oklahoma is filled with
    around 40-60,000 feet of sediment and it is far from the ocean. The
    Williston basin I speak of on my web page has 15,000 feet of sediment and
    it is even further from the ocean. Yet some areas of the North sea, which
    is near the ocean have only 5000 feet or less of sediment. Northern Canada
    has no sediment in spite of being near the arctic ocean (and yes there are
    meteor craters there).

    >To get salt deposition on the continent, one need special circumstances.
    >Just what those are at this point, I don't know. But, I feel certain an
    >explanation will be found.

    Like I said, I appreciate the honesty here. Can you explain why salt would
    windblown pollen in it but not any other fossils? The oldearth view
    explains it very well--it was a desert with little life. The flood can't
    explain why no other fossils are found in salt.

    >GRM: In order for this to occur the waters must remain tranquil. If the
    >were tranquil, they couldn't have eroded the vast sedimentary deposits of
    >the world. Are you a believer in a tranquil flood?
    >AR: The ocean was covered by at least an inch of fresh water. In the
    >breaking surf zone the water was mixed fairly quickly because the layer was
    >so thin. If we postulate that the rains put 1 inch of water on the oceans
    >every 20 minutes that would mean up to 6 feet of fresh water every 24 hours
    >and a total of 900 feet of fresh water after 150 days. This much deeper and
    >continually fed layer of fresh water would be harder to mix into ocean and
    >the mixing that takes place would still leave the water close to the surface
    >with a very low salt content. The surface wate would not be affected much
    >by the impact-tsunami because they pass over deep water with little effect.
    >In the deep ocean, wind waves would be the primary mixing factor. In fact,
    >only those breakers which are within a few feet in hight related to the
    >depth of the fresh water would have a mixing effect. The small waves would
    >not reach deep enough, and the large waves would simply raise and lower the
    >whole close surface water. So, the fresh water layer could be kept largely
    >intact in the deep ocean reagions of the planet during the Flood.

    Wait a minute, I thought those big tsunamis were supposed to crash on
    shore. Surely that would mix things up a bit. Or are these tranquil tsunamis?
    >GRM: Henry Morris wouldn't like you if you are.
    >AR: I was a creationary catastrophist long before I ever heard of Henry.

    Good, but my point still stands. He has no respect for tranquil theorys.
    BTW are you aware that the sediment distribution violates the 2nd law of
    thermo if you postulate a global flood? See GR Morton, Prolegamena to the
    STudy of the Sediments, CRSQ 17(1980) 162-167

    Unfortunately, I won't be able to respond again.


    Foundation, Fall and Flood
    Adam, Apes and Anthropology

    Lots of information on creation/evolution

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 04 2000 - 23:40:38 EDT