Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

From: Allen Roy (
Date: Sat Feb 09 2002 - 12:24:49 EST

  • Next message: Jan de Koning: "Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Darryl Maddox

    >It's a simple piece of logic; when a person asks a question about a
    particular formation you either answer it directly or say you don't know but
    you may have an analogous formation for which you do have information that
    may be relevant. But at least be sure you have read the literature on the
    formation requested and that the answer to the specific question isn't

    Wow! We scared you up out of the woodwork!

    I figured that it was self-evident that by referring to an analogous
    formation that I would do so because it would be relevant. I had read the
    previous Creationary account in CRSQ by Howe, and felt that it did not
    address Morton's concerns. However, the Tavrick publication in the latest
    CRSQ (Dec. 2001) did address Morton's concerns in the same kind turbidite

    >As for Allen asserting that since turbidites represent rapid deposition in
    high energy environments, if he will read the section on turbidites in the
    Encyclopedia of Sedimentation, 1978, ed by Fairbridge and Bourgeois,
    published by Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross Inc. I think he will find that only
    the sand portions are deposited rapidly - the intervening clays and shales
    are deposited slowly and this agrees with both the observation of the
    behavior of these materials in natural environments and in laboratory tests.

    Allen, as I remember you don't believe clays can only be deposited slowly,
    but until you can come up with some field observations or lab work to verify
    your assertion that they can be deposited rapidly I think Glenn has you in a
    corner. Yes, I know there are rapidly deposited finely laminated
    volcanoclastics near Mt. St. Helens, and I know that AiG published some
    articles on self organizing interbedds of coarse and fine materials; but
    finely laminated - high flow regime- volcanoclastics are not
    hydrodynamically the same as clay and while I have read the AiG material
    several times I fail to see how it applies here or really to any other clay
    settling problem. I'll check again to see if I can find the relevance. What
    I do know and think is relevant is that as slow as swamp water moves, the
    clay doesn't settle out of it at anywhere near the rate you need it to. If
    it did the channels would all be choked with clay while the water flowing
    out of the swamps would be clear as those famous Rocky Mountain rivers and
    in the swamp I saw that just wasn't the case.

    A few years ago An earthquake near ------- caused a large tsunami to sweep
    ashore leaving tsunami deposition far inland from the sea. Scientists were
    at the site within a few weeks, to months and studied the deposition. I had
    an email interchange with one of the scientists who studied the depositions.
    In the general discussion, they mentioned that the tsunami deposit of sand
    (5 to 10 cm thick) was intermittently covered with a thin layer of clay/silt
    (2 to 5 mm thick). In their study they focused entirely on the sand deposit
    and completely ignored the clay/silt layer. The scientist indicated that
    they studied the sand because it was thick enough to be studied but that the
    clay/silt was too thin. Even though the clay/silt layer had to have been
    deposited very quickly (within just a few minutes) by the tsunami, it was
    completely ignored as a tsunami deposit by the scientist in his publication.
    Why? I think because it supposedly violates hydrodynamic laws of deposition
    of clay/silt.

    If one were to take a thick slurry (mud in layman's terms) of clay and poor
    it out across the kitchen floor, besides having a very angry wife, you would
    have within a few minutes to a hour or two a layer of sticky, thick clay
    that would not have gotten there by hydrodynamically settling out of still

    If you took the same thick slurry of clay and dumped it into a tank of water
    with a sloping bottom, the slurry of clay, being much denser than the water,
    will behave as a turbidite. It would flow along the sloping bottom and not
    mix with the water, but for very minor boundary mixing. The slurry would
    come to rest and quickly form a lay of clay which did not hydrodynamically
    settle out of the water. I have not read the lab test results which you
    mention above (, but my guess is that the clay/silt was a minor constituent
    of the turbidite flow.

    Creationary Catastrophists do not look to swamps or sluggish rivers as
    models of deposition of clay/silt. Rather we look to rapid
    Tsunami/Turbidite deposition models consisting of slurries of clay/silt/sand

    I did an experiment about a year ago, which I reported to this ASAnet,
    concerning the settling of various ratios of soil to water in jars. I found
    that when the ratio of soil to water was about 1:12 the particles settled
    out slowly to the bottom of the jar. However, when the ratio was reduced to
    about 1:3 the mixture behaved as a thick mud. The particles did not settle
    out of the water, the water seeped out of the mud which sat on the bottom of
    the jar. This confirms the idea that clay/silt can be deposited quickly if
    the soil to water ratio is below a certain threshold. I don't know what
    this does to the hydrodynamic law of particle settling, but I know it is
    real and happens all the time.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 09 2002 - 12:23:04 EST