Re: Subject: RE: Report on the YEC seminar in Durango, 9-2003

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 08:35:07 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.: "RE: You don't know G_____! (Gould)"

    Glenn, you forget that the Flood was a miracle and all these things are
    possible. This is further proof that you lost your faith!

    Oops, I am being flippant, but how do you deal in a reasonable way with

    More seriously thew Coal Measures consist of a large number of cyclothems
    with alternate thick bands of sand and a band of coal from a few inches to

    In the 70s Fred Broadhurst of Manchester tried to work out a time span for
    them and concluded that the coal took about 80.000 years and the sand could
    be deposited in a few short mini-floods each lasting a weekend.

    Keep at it Glenn, even if you are wrong over the Mediterranean flood.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Glenn Morton" <>
    To: "Asa" <>
    Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:29 PM
    Subject: RE: Subject: RE: Report on the YEC seminar in Durango, 9-2003

    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: []On
    > >Behalf Of
    > >Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 5:35 AM
    > >I responded on Sep 15 with an explanation for two of your objections
    > >and oil). I was suspicious that you might ignore any response since you
    > >furnished an excuse in advance: "Due to several personal situations,
    > >expect much of a reply. I simply couldn't let this nonsense go by
    > >unchallenged." It is apparent that your "several personal situations"
    > >not interfered with your ability to respond to other subjects.
    > The personal situations included being at my father-in-laws for my
    > mother-in-laws funeral and other issues which haven't yet interferred as
    > much as I thought they might. I was merely trying to let people know that
    > might not respond at that time. and I didn't respond to Paul Greaves
    > publically. You have no reason to be mad at me for not responding when you
    > weren't the addressee on my note.
    > >
    > >I have no problem with you ignoring rational empirical data which
    > >with your OEC model, but, in light of your eschewing data, I do have a
    > >problem with statements like those above where you refer to my
    > >interpretations as "nonsense", and claim "They simply have everything of
    > >importance wrong! I am highly
    > >confident of that fact."
    > >
    > >I presented four lines of evidence which cannot be rationally interpreted
    > >within the swamp model for the origin of coal. You have ignored those
    > >statements, made by people who believe as you do, that coal was a swamp
    > >deposit.
    > Bill, I won't discuss coal with you. It is a total waste of my time. You
    > have never listened to the counter arguments and I see no reason why you
    > should now. To repeat that discussion wastes both our times.
    > >
    > >Here is another observation from a technical journal. Since you are so
    > >confident that what I say is nonsense, let's see if you can make sense of
    > >this:
    > =[snip]
    > and
    > >
    > >So let's hear it Glenn. Tell us how nonsensical it is to postulate a
    > >model which agrees with the observations of over 400 man years, and how
    > >rational it is to say that although "The established notion of a forest
    > >setting is therefore not supported by observation, and contrasts
    > >with both a
    > >lack of tree preservation in intraseam tonsteins and only sparse tree
    > >preservation in interseam tuffs. It should, however, be recognised that
    > >this is a negative argument, and that a lack of preserved trees is not
    > >direct evidence for a lack of trees." And "Such an absence of topographic
    > >relief is not only difficult to envisage in a forest setting, but is also
    > >inconsistent with other irregular peat surfaces such as raised bogs."
    > >
    > >The spotlight is on you - long, tall Texan; here is your chance to
    > >this dumb old Alabama redneck hillbilly geologist. Tell me how your
    > >is built on those negative arguments. Talk to me, Glenn.
    > You haven't dealt with the quantity of coal. You assume an impossible rate
    > of growth for trees in a pre-flood world (in you post of the 15th. Then
    > say, voila the problem is solved. Coal isn't the only biological matter
    > which needs explanation in the flood model as you are well aware. You
    > deal with the problem by only looking at coal in isolation. Remember there
    > is a bigger world out there than merely coal. I will not defend the number
    > of animals Morris claims for the Karroo, but if it is true, then here are
    > the consequences.
    > Bill, you can't solve each of these problems with no thought for the other
    > problems. Your claim to solve the coal quantity problem rings very, very
    > hollow in light of the other evidences of pre-flood life forms. Thus,
    > you face this issue, it is a waste of our time to discuss it.
    > The following is from Foundation, Fall and Flood
    > ****start***
    > Too Many Animals
    > Advocates of the global flood claim that all the fossils are the remains
    > animals that died in the flood. Morris states,
    > "Still further, the creationist suspects that the fossil record and the
    > sedimentary rocks, instead of speaking of a long succession of geologic
    > ages, may tell rather of just one former age, destroyed in a single great
    > worldwide aqueous cataclysm."37
    > If this claim is true, that the fossil record represents the remains of a
    > single prediluvial world, then there should not be enough fossils to
    > overcrowd the world. Most animals would be destroyed in the Flood, not
    > preserved. Thus if the geologic column consists of one single biosphere
    > which was destroyed in one year, there should be very few fossils and
    > certainly not enough of them to fill up today's earth. But this isn't
    > we see. What we see are too many animals, which means that we have buried
    > the geologic column more than one biosphere.
    > Whitcomb and Morris cite with approval a paleontologist who estimates that
    > the Karroo Formation of southern Africa is believed to contain 800 billion
    > fossil vertebrates with an average size of the fox.38 There are 126
    > acres on the surface of the earth. Only 30 percent of this area is land,
    > giving a land area of 38 billion acres. If 800 billion animals were
    > over the 38 billion available acres, there would be 21 animals with an
    > average size of a fox, per acre, from this deposit alone. This does not
    > include all the vertebrate fossil deposits throughout the rest of the
    > Assuming that the Karroo beds are only 1% of the fossil vertebrates in the
    > world (the Karroo beds occupy much less than 1% of the sedimentary column)
    > means that 2100 animals per acre occupied the preflood world. Since an
    > is 4840 square yards, each animal would have only 2 square yards, or 18
    > square feet, of territory. That is an area only 4.2 wide by 4.2 feet long.
    > This can be put in a setting that most Americans can understand. The
    > average house lot is about a quarter acre. Can you imagine every house in
    > your neighborhood surrounded by 525 hungry animals the size of a fox? I,
    > one, would not venture out of doors. Obviously this is far too many
    > Too Many Plants
    > If we further consider the quantity of plant matter which must have
    > occupied the single preflood world envisioned by young-earth creationists,
    > these results pale in comparison. There are an estimated 15 x 10^18 grams
    > of carbon contained in the coal reserves of the world.39 An acre of
    > tropical forest contains 525 kilograms of plant matter per square meter.40
    > Assuming an 18% carbon content of plant matter41 we have 94.5 kilograms
    > carbon per square meter. Multiplying this by the number of square meters
    > land, we have approximately the quantity of carbon contained in coal, 15 x
    > 10^18 grams. One can account for all the carbon in coal only by
    > postulating a tropical rain forest over the entire world.
    > But this is impossible, because many of the animals in the fossil record
    > require low productivity regions to survive. Grazing animals that live on
    > grass can not live in tropical rain forests, because carpeting grasses do
    > not live there. Now we have too many animals on each acre and almost too
    > much plant matter. But we are not through.
    > Whitcomb and Morris believe that oil and natural gas are the result of the
    > decay of plants and animals that lived before the flood. These authors
    > state,
    > "The exact nature of the organic material has been as yet quite unsettled,
    > but there seems little doubt that the vast reservoirs of organic remains,
    > both plant and animal, in the sedimentary rocks constitute a more than
    > adequate source."
    > "Although the details are not clear, the Deluge once again appears to
    > offer a satisfactory explanation for the origin of oil, as well as the
    > stratigraphic phenomena. The great sedimentary basins being filled
    > and more or less continuously during the Flood would provide a prolific
    > source of organic material, together with whatever heat and pressure might
    > have been needed to initiate the chemical reactions necessary to begin the
    > transformation into petroleum hydrocarbons. Of course, not all organic
    > debris deposited during the Flood was converted into oil; apparently
    > catalysts or other chemicals were also necessary, and where these were
    > present, it was possible for oil to form."42
    > If all the oil were the result of the decay of organic matter, then there
    > far too much oil and natural gas in the world. There are 201 x 10^18
    > of carbon in the hydrocarbons of the earth. In all of the world's living
    > things, there are only 0.3 x 10^18 grams of carbon. There is 670 times
    > carbon in petroleum than there is in every living plant and animal on
    > Surely the world was not 670 times more crowded at the time of the Flood
    > than it is today!
    > Too Many Plankton
    > There are also too many microscopic animals. Most limestone is deposited
    > bacteria and invertebrate animals. The Austin Chalk, which underlies
    > Dallas, is a 400-foot thick limestone bed made of the remains of
    > animals, called coccolithophores or coccoliths. It is about 70%
    > The coccolithophore is a small spherical animal, between 5 and 60
    > micrometers in diameter, each having about 16 coccoliths that separate
    > the death. According to Stokes Law these animals would fall through the
    > water at a rate of .1 millimeter per second. To fall through a 100 foot
    > meter) depth of water would take 4 days.
    > The time required to form the Austin Chalk is far longer than one year.
    > The coccolith skeleton, when pressed flat, is about 1 micron or one
    > millionth of a meter thick. A deposit of coccoliths 400 feet thick must
    > represent many thousands of years of deposits. One hundred twenty-one
    > million coccoliths could be stacked up like coins across the four hundred
    > feet. The length of time necessary to deposit these 121 million
    > can be calculated by assuming the maximum density of living
    > in the waters above. Such measurements can be made during an event known
    > a red tide.
    > Occasionally, growth conditions become so favorable that they grow beyond
    > all reason. As many as 60 million creatures per liter of water grow and
    > quickly use up all of the oxygen and nutrients in the water and then die.
    > Their decay continues to use any oxygen entering the water and also gives
    > off poisons. Fish who swim into one of these areas often die from lack of
    > oxygen and the absorption of toxins emitted by the dead microorganism.
    > These water blooms last only a few weeks as the microorganisms deplete the
    > water's nutrients rapidly and die. However, even at their most dense, 60
    > million microorganisms per liter, only 39 layers of organisms are stacked
    > a single cubic centimeter. Thus, to stack 121 million coccoliths would
    > require the death of nearly 8 million organisms. A 100 foot water depth,
    > filled to the maximum with coccospheres, would only generate a thickness
    > six feet of chalk! The four hundred feet of chalk of the Austin formation
    > would require 66 such blooms. If it required two weeks between each bloom
    > recharge the nutrients and one week for the bloom to occur, it would take
    > years to deposit the chalk. And these values are wildly optimistic for the
    > deposition of chalk. This size bloom is not possible.
    > The coccolithophores remove calcium carbonate from the water to make their
    > skeletons. In water depth of 100 feet there is not nearly enough calcium
    > deposit such a volume of chalk. One hundred feet of seawater contains
    > enough carbonate to deposit a little over 1-millimeter of carbonate.
    > no bloom of the size mentioned above can even occur. Using the two-week
    > recharge and one-week bloom mentioned above, it would take 7,000 years to
    > deposit the chalk. Obviously, the chalk under Dallas would require much
    > more time to deposit than merely one year. In southern Louisiana, the
    > is 2100 feet (640 meters) thick. I have drilled it. This would take
    > considerably more time than seven thousand years.
    > Additionally, the quantity of chalk seen in the world is far too great to
    > have been contained in the preflood world hypothesized by young-earth
    > creationists. The Austin Chalk is a chalk deposit that stretches from
    > Mexico along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico into Louisiana, a distance in
    > excess of 800 km. In Mexico, the Austin Chalk is named the San Felipe
    > Formation. A glance at the geologic data shows that the band is about 160
    > wide and appears to average 120 meters in thickness.43 In the chalk in
    > alone there are enough dead coccolithophores to cover the earth to a depth
    > of 3 centimeters. But Texas is not the only place on earth that has
    > of chalk. In Alabama and Mississippi, the chalk is known as the Selma.
    > Niobrara chalk - 5,000 km long, 1,400 km. wide and 6 meters thick - runs
    > through much of the western part of the Great Plains of the United
    > The Niobrara would add another 7 centimeters of cover to the earth.
    > Throughout Europe Upper Cretaceous chalks cover large areas. The White
    > Cliffs of Dover are made of chalk that is as much as 215 meters thick in
    > parts of England. This chalk sweeps across southern Scandinavia, Poland
    > into south Russia where it attains an amazing thickness of up to 1000
    > meters. It is stopped by the Ural Mountains. The chalks of western
    > are enough to cover the entire earth to a depth of 83 centimeters.45 West
    > the Urals, in the Central Asian Tuar-Kyr mountain range, a deposit of
    > 20 meters thick is found. In Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Saudi
    > an Upper Cretaceous chalk is around 180 meters thick. If all the fossil
    > record was the record of the destruction of one preflood biosphere, as
    > Morris suggests, it must have been a crowded place. The worldwide quantity
    > of dead coccoliths would cover the earth to a depth of one meter.
    > Too Many Diatoms
    > A deposit that is similar to chalk is diatomaceous chert. These siliceous
    > deposits are made of little more than dead diatoms. A diatom is a small
    > single-celled animal that lives in the sea. As diatoms collect on the
    > floor and are buried deeper and deeper, they are compressed and changed
    > a form known as diatomite, which is used in swimming pool filters, to
    > Upon further burial, with increased temperature and pressure, the opal is
    > changed into chert. The Monterey formation of California is such a
    > It is the light-colored rock that forms much of the landscape of southern
    > California. The deposit is 1,200 kilometers long, 250 kilometers wide and
    > averages half a kilometer in thickness. This single deposit of dead
    > is large enough to cover the earth to a depth of nearly 1 foot, or 0.28
    > meters.
    > But this is not all. There are over 300 such siliceous deposits around
    > world. If each one of them is only one-fourth the size of the Monterey,
    > there are enough dead diatoms to cover the earth uniformly to a depth of
    > meters, or 70 feet! So we now have a preflood world which contains 2,100
    > terrestrial animals per acre (none of which are human), a tropical rain
    > forest everywhere, 20 meters of dead diatoms over the entire globe and 1
    > meter of dead coccoliths. Where is everyone going to live? And we are not
    > through.
    > Too Many Crinoids
    > The Mission Canyon formation in the northwestern United States is part of
    > truly remarkable deposit. It is largely made of the remains of dead
    > crinoids, which are deep-sea creatures called sea lilies. Clark and
    > report,
    > "Much of the massive limestone formation is composed of sand-sized
    > particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells
    > broken by the waves. Such a sedimentary rock qualifies for the name
    > sandstone because it is composed of particles of sand size cemented
    > together; because the term sandstone is commonly understood to refer to a
    > quartz-rich rock, however, these limestone sandstones are better called
    > calcarenites. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and
    > currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they
    > died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding that is
    > common in this formation are additional evidence of waves and currents at
    > work. Even in Mississippian rocks, where whole crinoids are rare fossils,
    > and as a result, it is easy to underestimate the population of these
    > during the Paleozoic era. Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission
    > Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of
    > a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In
    > the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a
    > of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins
    > rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges
    > to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal
    > decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000
    > miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions, trillions of
    > crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers
    > the imagination."46
    > In just this one deposit, there are enough crinoids to cover every square
    > inch of the earth to a depth of 1/4 inch. Where would the vertebrate
    > animals (in the Karroo Beds mentioned earlier) live if the whole world
    > covered with crinoids? But this deposit is not the only crinoidal
    > Rocks of the lower Mississippian age are largely composed of crinoidal
    > calcarenites - translation: dead crinoids. Further north in Canada, the
    > deposit of crinoidal limestones is called the Rundle, and it is called the
    > Lisburne limestone in Alaska. Both of these beds contain vast quantities
    > dead crinoids. Farther south, the crinoidal limestone is called the
    > Leadville Limestone in Colorado, the Redwall in Arizona, and the Chappell
    > Texas, the Burlington and Keokuk limestones in the Mid-Continent region.
    > The Burlington alone contains another 719 cubic miles of dead crinoids.47
    > is called the Edwardsville Formation in Indiana. This Mississippian
    > crinoidal rock unit is called the Ft. Payne in Tennessee, Kentucky and
    > Georgia. But this is not the extent of this crinoidal limestone.
    > In Australia there is a deposit of crinoidal limestones called the Namoi
    > and Bingleburra Formations.48 In Libya near the Timenocaline Wells, there
    > a 6 foot bed of crinoidal limestone.49 White crinoidal limestones are
    > along the banks of the Zilim River in the south part of the Ural
    > Mountains.50 Belgium boasts a crinoidal limestone that reaches 2,100 feet
    > thick.51 Without further documentation, which could have been provided,
    > these crinoidal limestones are found in Egypt, Central Asia, and China. A
    > Mississippian crinoidal limestone even tops Mt. Everest! With crinoids
    > over the Northern Hemisphere, where did land animals live? Where did the
    > tropical rain forest live? Where did the diatoms come from? Where did the
    > coal come from?
    > When it is realized that almost all of the limestone deposits in the world
    > are biologic in origin, a problem quickly arises. There are 6.42 x 1022
    > grams of carbon in the limestones of the earth and only 3 x 10^17 grams of
    > carbon in the biosphere of the earth. The flood must have buried 214,000
    > times more living matter in limestone alone than is currently on the
    > There are far too many dead animals to have fit on the preflood earth as
    > envisioned by the global flood advocates. The fossil record can not even
    > begin to be considered the remains of one preflood biosphere. It would
    > been too crowded! Glenn Morton, Foundation, Fall and Flood, (DMD
    > Spring TX, 1999), p. 83-86

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 12:29:28 EDT