>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
>Behalf Of Allen Roy
>Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:51 AM
>Shale is not evidence of long time deposition. Darryl conceeded later that
>shales could be short time under proper conditions.
Which rarely exist.
>> And once again, I would point you to the laws of physics
>> in the form of Stoke's law for the settling rate of shale particles in
>> water. You can perform this experiment yourself in a jar. Take sand box
>> and mix in a dash of dirt, fill the jar with water put the lid on and
>> vigorously. Set the jar down and you will see that the sand drops out
>> almost immediately but the water remains muddy for many hours.
>This is the
>> reason that the flood can't deposit shale rapidly.
>I have done just such experiments and reported them to this net. Try this.
>Put a couple of table spoons of sand in a jar. Then fill the jar half full
>with dirt. Then fill the rest of the jar with water. Shake well then set
>What will happen is that within a minute the sand will set on the bottom of
>the jar. In about the same time a thick layer of mud will come to rest on
>top of the sand. A thin layer of murky water will swirl above the mud.
Have you measured the particle size of the 'mud' of which you speak? Shale
is not necessarily what you call mud. It is a size thing.
>Over several hours the water layer will slowly become clear. During the
>same time, water will slowly seep up from the mud which has been sitting on
>the sand since the beginning. But the important thing is that the Thick
>layer of mud did not take hours and hours to form on top of the sand. It
>was there almost as quickly as the sand.
Over several hours I see. Now that jar is about 6 inches tall and it takes
several hours for the water to become clear and the finer size fraction to
settle. Lets say 6 hours. Then put this in an ocean with 2000 feet of
water over it and you will find that it takes 4000 hours now, or 166 days.
Yeah, that is really slow. I have spent the last 8 years of my life looking
for oil in water depths of 2000 feet or greater. It isn't all that deep
>It is not my fault that you cannot read Russian. I cannot either, however,
>the author of the Tavrick article in CRSQ (Dr. Alexander V. Lalomov, ARCTUR
>Reserach Geological Laboratory, Moscow, Russia) can and has translated
>quotations he used from the above articles. You may, of course, choose to
>believe that Lalomov is lying.
And you can't check Lalomov out. You have absolute faith in Lalomov when you
are supposed to only have faith in Jesus!
>Lalomove indicates that the short trackways and burrows indicate a short
>time between depositional events.
Exactly how do trackways indicate short time frames? No trackways indicates
an even shorter time because one doesn't have to wait for that silly goose
of an animal to take its stroll or dig its hole.
>I know that the high-energy features are at the shale-sand interface. This
>is what Lalomove indicates. It is the short trackways and burrows which
>indicate that the shale deposition was fast.
So all God's creatures took a really rapid stroll and left short tracks?
That doesn't make sense.
>>> No one is suggesting that they all survived.
>> Then, if they didn't all survive, then we should expect that there would
>> fewer animals with each layer. We should see a strong decrease in burrows
>> we go up the Haymond formation. This is not observed. Indeed if
>only 1% of
>> the animals died in each Haymond layer, we would see only 1 burrower out
>> a thousand in merely 600 layers. But there are 15,000 layers. If only one
>> out of a thousand dies, then they are all dead before the 2000th
>> if only 1 out of ten thousand die, then you should have 22% fewer burrows
>> the upprmost layer than in the bottom. So,what do you say to this? ARe
>> going to say that only 1 in 10,000 died in the landslide?
>This is speculation. What does the data indicate?
Burrows up and down the section with little change in density of them.
>> If the Flood is a miracle, then it is the
>> highest form of hubris to tell God what miracle he performed.
>I agree that if one appeals to a miracle for the Flood, then any model is a
>basic waste of time. At this time, I feel that there are ways that such
>heat could be dissipated without boiling away all water,
>atmosphere and life
>form. One that is being researched now by Baumgardner is water/steam
>geysers associated with the oceanic ridges that would carry large
>of heat from the exposed mantle directly into space. I have not yet heard
>how much of the generated heat this may account for. There are problems
>with CPT, but I believe that they are not fatal to the concept.
How do you know? Can you do the math? Baumgardner programmed an atmospheric
heat program for Dillow which showed that under a canopy of 40 feet of
precipitable water, the surface temperature of the earth would be 70 deg. F.
Water is an incredible greenhouse gas and my calculations showed that 40 ft
would result in a temperature well above boiling. When I got Baumgardner's
program I saw that at each level in the atmosphere, he subtracted energy and
never again accounted for it. Since that day, I have not trusted
Baumgardner's programming or calculations. And like Lalimov, you have
absolute faith in Baumgardner. You can't deny it unless you can claim to
know the math Baumgardner is feeding you.
>> Why do you ignore what the scientists say about the killing caused by
>I don't ignore it. I recognize that these are estimates based on the best
>information available at this time. And such, I believe that they will be
>modified as more and better infromation is developed.
So now we appeal to the future to overthrow the best work of today? THat is
no different than Baumgardner believing in miracles to overcome his heat
problem. You believe the future. Both believe things without evidence. What
is the difference? At least Baumgardner places his faith in God.
I believe that many
>of these estimates are exagerated (not intentionally).
Upon what EVIDENCE do you believe this? Or is it just a prejudicial feeling
>> >> Why isn't everything stirred up and mixed up?
>> >At this point I do not have an answer for that. But to say, that one
>> >that needs to be forgotten is the idea that the Flood was a large
>> >homogenous mess.
>> It is amazing how often people refuse to answer simple questions
>> the geology of the flood. Why? You claim hundreds of asteroids hitting
>> earth and you don't expect things to get mixed up? What kind of idea is
>I did not say that there would be no mixing, but that it would not be a
>single HOMOGENOUS mess. Each impact-tsunami would carry different and
>distinct loads according to the rocks, soils, vegetation and life
>it picked up in it path.
But we find the same order of microfossils around the world--exactly the
same in every ocean. Why would this be if each impact carried its own
>I did not say that the microfossils were in high concentrations. I said
>that they became trapped in thick mud and deposited quickly/
So why do they all come out in the same order around the globe? Surely the
thick mud didn't remain totally unmixed?
Of Chicxulub you wrote;
>It is estimated that it would cause an earthquake of 11 on the richter
>scale. The overpressure issue is overblown. It would have had a
>devistating effect over a very large part of the earth, but it is
>exageration to claim that it would kill most everything.
Well you have hundreds of these things hitting all over the earth, each
would have its own large area of devastation. In what corner of the world
did the asteroids miss where life could survive?
>backing down from early estimations as more information is discovered. The
>hole in the atmosphere would cause much more energy to escape into space
>than your estimate allows. One cannot scale the Tunguska event up to 100
>million megatons because the tunguska event was encapsuled in the
>atmosphere. The Chicxulub event blew the atmosphere away.
Agreed, but if only 10% of it remained on earth, then the consequences would
be horrendous. You need to rid yourself of 99.999% of it. This is almost
impossible because the meteor also would heat the earth's mantle causing
>> When looked at through all time, from the Cambrian to the
>present, we find
>> an increase in the numbers and types of burrows and footprints
>In the Haymond formation?? or the geologic column?? There is no such thing
>as the geologic column. There is a geologic record, but not a geologic
In the geologic column. And inspite of your claims that there is no
geologic column I know of 80 oil wells that drilled through rocks of every
single age in Montana and North Dakota. It is very convenient to deny the
existence of evidence when one feels that the evidence would threaten a
preferred viewpoint. But if one does this, then he must allow others to do
it also so you have no reason to grip if people simply don't believe what
you say regardless of your evidence.
>All this means, accepting the fabled geologic column for the moment, that
>more and more animals were being affected by the flood. The waters are
>rising higher and higher onto the continents as impact-tsunami after
>impact-tsunami reach higher elevations.
So why are primates, who live in relatively low tropical lands found so late
in the flood? Surely a tsunami would take out their area first before
>Yes, indeed, you are referring to the geologic column. like I said above,
>assuming some semblance to a geologic column, impact-tsunami would encroach
>further and further onto the continents involving more and more types of
>But my question was about the number of tracks and burrows of the same
>creatures in the Haywood formation not about the supposed geologic column.
I answered this above.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 17:10:02 EST