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

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 21:23:12 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Questions to Allen Roy"

    thanks for the kind words. I will keep at it even if my views are wrong. I
    can't prove them and know I can't. But they don't violate data. Other
    concordistic views do.

      You ought to see what I wrote of our historical disagreement in my
    response to Josh tonight. I don't think you will mind terribly what I said.

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Michael Roberts []
    >Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:35 AM
    >To: Glenn Morton; Asa
    >Subject: Re: Subject: RE: Report on the YEC seminar in Durango, 9-2003
    >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
    >> >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
    >> >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
    >> 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
    >> 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
    >> 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
    >> 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 - 21:23:37 EDT