Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Now Percy, my photos were of good enough quality that you were able to make a fair identification without even having a background in marine biology.

---

Not really. The photos were of dubious quality. And I don't really want a fair identification. I want a definite id.

quote:

---

I have already done a number of 'null' tests to check that my findings come from my samples and not from lab contaminates. I have also taken a number of negative samples that did indeed turned up negative. What I learned from those negative tests is that the marine diatoms occur as a trace surface deposit and are not mixed in the soil in general.

---

Hmmm, you meant that the diatoms have not mixed in with the soil after laying around for 10,000 years? That doesn't sound very good to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
They are mixed in the top soil, they are not found deeper down in deep sub soil or in deep sedimentary rock formations that the YECs would have us believe were created in the flood. The limited locations that marine traces of the flood are found at, conclusively disproves YEC flood theories.

---

Well, let's see what you said:What I learned from those negative tests is that the marine diatoms occur as a trace surface deposit and are not mixed in the soil in general. Sounds to me like you are changing your story.By the way, YEC theory regarding the flood has already been disproven. The problem in front of you is that your theory is a long way from even having any support.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy:

quote:

---

Mt St Helens demonstrated on an intermediate scale how solid rock can be carved out catastrophically.

---

​

Yes solid rock can be destroyed catastrophically by a massive volcanic blast but what you are implying is false. The ground that was "carved" at St. Helens was partially consolidated deposits from countless previous eruptions of the mountain over the last 20,000 years and soft volcanic mud that flowed as a lahar. Much of the "carving" of previous deposits was done by the largest landslide in recorded history combined with a massive lateral blast not a flood. If you walk out on the mountain as I have done twice since the eruption you can dig up the "solid rock" you are talking about with your bare hands as I think I told you before. The so called little grand canyon on the Toutle river was cut through volcanic ash deposits by mud flows. It is the same material that still occasionally flows in lahars down Mt. Pinatubo wiping out villages and was hardly solid rock. I think you will find that a lot of the so called solid rock has now been transported down the river and had to be dredged out of the Cowlitz and Lewis river basins.

---

Stratovolcanos are widely known to be easily erodable. I remember MSH before the eruption. Just a bunch of loose ejecta with a few thin and discontinuous flows. And the deposits created by the eruption were little different. There is no comparison between stratovolcanic pyroclastics and lithified shelf sediments.

quote:

---

You might try to learn what really happened at St. Helens and not believe the distortions produced by professional creationists.

​

Randy

---

Good advice.

quote:

---

That sounds like very uncritical acceptance to me.

---

LOL! And yet you can cling to a fantastic interpretation with untenable sub-theories and wishful thinking without any critical reasoning whatsoever!

quote:

---

You are to(sic) accepting of mainstream science!

---

Tell me it ain't so! Wmscott, too accepting of mainstream science! You can't be serious!

quote:

---

The mainstream explanation is simply the best one they could come up with.

---

Yep that's all it is. Ummmm, of course, that's all that it can
be. Yes, scientists who have worked on these ideas for hundreds of years couldn't come up with anything better than a bunch of fantasy. It is becoming clearer to me now that we should abandon all of the preexisting work and accept a mythical story pushed by a couple of laymen who have no background in this area.

quote:

---

To see if it is a shoehorn explanation you have to go back to the data.

---

Right! TB hasn't done any shoehorning at all. I think the fast-slow, hot-cold, deep-shallow, violent-gentle wet-dry flood is a much better explanation.

quote:

---

Wm, that is incorrect. Highly concentrated heat source could lead to a guyser(sic) effect due to steam pressure build up. There is a perfect mechanism of KE generation(sic). Exactly what velocity it reached is, at this stage, open to speculation.

---

Nope, it isn't. I'm sure that this can be calculated based on the strength of the rocks, the total weight of overburden and some reasonable idea of dissolved gases. But even barring that, please show us evidence that this has ever happened.

quote:

---

I believe God ordained the physical events in such a way that they worked! Whether he simply triggered accerlated(sic) decay and sat back I simply don't know.

---

Gosh, TB, thanks for this scientific explanation! I understand now where I was wrong all this time. Now, could you explain once again about that comment regarding 'uncritical acceptance?'TB, is this really your best argument?

Percy,Thanks for the info on industrial use and transport of diatoms and diatomaceous earth (Damn, I wish I'd thought of that!). This is a fascinating subject. I once talked to some diatomaceous earth miners in California. They told me how any piece of equipment that goes into the quarry is virtually 'detailed' before it is allow entry due to concerns about contamination. No dirt, soil, leaves, loose paint or oil is left. As anyone who works with heavy equipment knows this borders on obsession. They clean the bulldozer treads with brushes and hot water. Anyway, you can imagine what happens to the stuff once it gets bagged and loaded on trucks for transport all over the country ... diatomaceous dust everywhere.

quote:

---

I suggest you ask Edge or Joe Meert about possible geologists to contact about diatom identifications, but my guess is that at this point it would be a pointless exercise. If they're diatoms, then any experienced field geology will probably just tell you that marine diatoms found in surface material, especially in agricultural regions of the country like yours, frequently have a human origin.

---

With regard to wmscott's diatoms: I would say that, based on symmetry consideratons, his identifications are wrong. Also, despite his declarations that they showed no abrasion or evidence of eolian transport, the specimens are damaged. That, along with the poor quality of photographs, suggests to me that no valid identification or source (marine vs non-marine) can be made.As to experts, there are many out there on the web. I am sure that they are available to make identifications for anyone, and would probably be gratified (and shocked) that someone outside their small fraternity would be interested in such obscure organisms.

quote:

---

I believe both sides are doing data fitting.

---

Good for you. This is a nice vague generalization, how about some examples?

quote:

---

Becasue of the nature of the data both sides can frequently get acceptable results.

---

Only when creationists ignore some data.

quote:

---

You can LOL and snicker as much as you like but this is my sober opinion.

---

Thank you. I will. In the absence of facts, that is all you have... As much as I have castigated wmscott, at least he has some idea of geological processes.

quote:

---

Evidence that we are data fitting?

​

1a You data fit the geo-col to eons of time and the occasional catastrophe.

---

Nope, the geological column was constructed first. It then became clear that old ages were necessary to explain it.

quote:

---

* The positive evidence is fitted to numerous depositonal envrionements.

---

Nope. The interpretations is fit to the evidence.

quote:

---

* But a lot of the data doesn't easily fit this scenario: systematic fossil graveyards, sorted layers on grand scales, cyclothems, paleocurrents etc.

---

Nope. The paleocurrents etc. are data that mainstream geology is built upon.

quote:

---

1b We data fit the geo-col to a catastrophic tectoic flood event with the occasional brief break.

---

Agreed, you do.

quote:

---

* The positive data is fitted to tectonically generated flood surges.

---

Which are not supported by the evidence and have no mechanism.

quote:

---

* But a lot of the data doesn't easily fit this scenario: Evaporite deposits, habitated ground layers, eolien deposits. How do we disipate the tectonic heat?

---

All of these are more than adequately explained by mainstream geology.

quote:

---

2a You fit the fossil record to evolution over time.

---

Nope. Evolution explains the fossil record. You've got it backwards again!

quote:

---

* The positive data is fitted to a sceanrio by arbitary length lines.

---

Nope. The lines are not of arbitrary length and suggest a lack of data and a proposed lineage (an explanation of the data).

quote:

---

* But there are systematically no transitionals along the lines.

---

That is because they are an interpretation drawn to fit the known data. Not the other way around.

quote:

---

How did the biochemistry of life first evolve? Where did the basic gene types come from? Can anatomies really constrcut themselves blindly?

---

There is evidence of natural origins. Abiogenesis explains this data. The data are not bent to fit the theory.

quote:

---

2b We fit the fossil record to creaiton and the flood.

---

Correct, you fit the data to your theory.

quote:

---

* The positive data is fitted to a creatd 'kind'/flood burial concept with sufficient diversification to explain observed effects of natural selection and allow Noah to fit all the land based kinds on the ark.

---

Yes, you have forced the data to an explanation that has no mechanism, no modern counterpars and largely defies physical laws.

quote:

---

* But there are a handful of transtionals and why all dinosaurs below modern mammals and why no flowering plants below amphibians?

---

Evolution explains these things readily.

quote:

---

We both have similar problems becasue we simply fit the data as best we can to the model we prefer.

---

Correction. You fit the data, we explain it.

quote:

---

Down the track one model may become better,

---

You are behind the curve again on this....

quote:

---

...probably not just through data taking (although genomics may lend a hand, paleontolgoy still delivers surprises and a systematic study of paelocurrents might be interesting) but also by an improvement in models. Due to the intracability of these complex systems it may not be possible to completely sort this out scientifically.

---

Not as long as you can invoke miracles.

quote:

---

Only when creationists ignore some data.

​

Or evolutionists ignore other data.

---

I have ignored no issues that you have brought up. On the other hand, I hear you say all the time, 'well, this is a problem for us' or you ignore the point all together.

quote:

---

As much as I have castigated wmscott, at least he has some idea of geological processes.

​

So give me some examples of what I don't understand.

---

See above. You do not know where the geological column came from, nor do you realize that evolutuion explains the fossil record (not the other way around).

quote:

---

TB: 1a You data fit the geo-col to eons of time and the occasional catastrophe.

​

Edge: Nope, the geological column was constructed first. It then became clear that old ages were necessary to explain it.

---

Well, at least you are consistent. Consistently wrong, that is. You have to understand that there is history here. Just because we now know that the GC represents long ages, does not mean that this was always so. Evidence collected along the way showed us that the times were much longer than 6000 years. For example, radiometric decay made it virtually impossible to have a 6Ky earth. No data fitting at all, simply restructuring of the theory.

quote:

---

That is still data fitting. You have data and then for each bed you find the most similar sedimentary environmetn today and you say that is what this environment looks like after lithificaiton. It is a best fit/calibration scenario. We can do the same thing expcept we have to rely more on simulation since we have no global flood happeneing today.

​

Nope. The lines are not of arbitrary length and suggest a lack of data and a proposed lineage (an explanation of the data).

​

The lines come from the cladogram not the fossil record.

---

Exactly, the cladograms are not data, the fossil record is. The diagrams were derived from the known fossil record.

quote:

---

You take the data and weave a story around it with dotted lines

---

Exactly, the story is fitted to the data.

quote:

---

(and then turn the dotten lines into flows for the public, university and school students. That is data fitting.

---

Yes, they are the best story available.

quote:

---

Abiogenesis explains this data.

​

LOL!

---

Another cogent argument, I see...

quote:

---

You do not know where the geological column came from, nor do you realize that evolutuion explains the fossil record (not the other way around).

​

I know the historical and technical issues very well. I beleive it is you that do not realize the extent to which you have confused data with interpretaiton.

---

I have demonstrated otherwise...

quote:

---

Data-fitting is exactly the process of weaving a model around data. If you think I am saying that the data is being doctored then you misunderstand me. The geo-col is simply not the type of data that 'speaks for itself'.

---

Very well. My misunderstanding. I guess I would call what creatonists do 'forcing' the data, then.

quote:

---

Naively it looks either like eons or a catastrophe.

---

'Naively'... hmmm, good choice of words.

quote:

---

In detail it also looks either like eons or a catastrophe simply because of the nature of the data.

---

Actually, millions of catastrophes over billions of years.

quote:

---

We are both trying to explain the mineral compostion, fossil compostion, paelocurrents and tectonic aspects of the entire vertical span of the geo-col over the entire surface of the Earth. This is very difficult to do in a deterministic manner. It is very difficult to do anything other than tell 'just-so' stories.

---

Not at all. When one has evidence, it is easy to come up with valid explanations that can be tested and utilized to expand our knowledge base.

quote:

---

Stating that the continents have moved and the sea-floors have subducted and climate has changed is one thing. Stating that you know the rates that these processes occurred at is another.

---

Once again, not at all. We have very good evidence as to the rates of plate tectonic processes.

quote:

---

YEC Christians have both the Biblical claim of a global flood and systematic scientific evidence of rapidity of generation of the geo-col to back up our viewpoint.

---

Very well, but you have never explained the slow processes that we can see in the geological record. You only look at part of the puzzle.

quote:

---

P: I expect that there are fresh water variants of many marine species.

​

W: Yes of course, that is why species identification is important. Asterolampra Marylandica is a centric diatom of which there are very few freshwater descendants, in fact the older books on diatoms say there are none. I have been unable to find any freshwater diatoms that have any resemblance to Asterolampra Marylandica , from your lack of posting on this I gather you haven't ether or wouldn't have resorted to posting pictures of algae.

---

Actually, yours doesn't look like A. Marylandica, either...

quote:

---

P: ... diatomaceous earth and diatomite, which both contain abundant diatoms are extensively mined and used for numerous purposes, which can result in them being spread over the surface of the Earth.

​

W: I have been waiting for the better part of a year for somebody to bring this up. A web site had the following information on diatomite mines and mining in the USA.

​

There are currently 12 diatomite producing facilities in the United States
All of the active diatomite mines is the U.S. are freshwater lake deposits except the marine deposit at Lompoc, California.
....

​

CAS – Central Authentication Service

​

quote:

---

Now, most mines of diatoms are freshwater diatoms which don't concern us since we are talking about marine diatoms.

---

---

You have not convinces us of this, wmscott. Your photos are not definitive on this point.

quote:

---

In the USA, only the mine at Lompoc, California mines marine diatoms and they are mining the Monterey Formation which has marine sediments from the upper Miocene to the lower Pliocene. The lower Pliocene age gives the diatoms of the Monterey formation a minimum age of probably at least 3.5 millions years. The types of diatoms found in the oceans 3.5 million years ago was considerably different from what was present at the end of the ice age. The following web site noted.

​

Paleontologists make use of the fact that diatom species are short-lived: every five million years or so, any particular species will disappear or yield to a new species.

---

Still irrelevant. You have not yet identified the species.

quote:

---

Based on that rate of replacement, most of the diatoms found in the Monterey Formation are extinct and are not a problem. Additionally as pointed out in the first site quoted, 70% of this material is used in filtration which means it was sintered or fused, such treatment is visible under the microscope and also fuses the diatoms into clumps too large for wind transport.

---

Okay, test time! What is the fallacy here?

quote:

---

Also as I have already pointed out, Asterolampra Marylandica is too large for wind transport any way.

---

First of all, untrue. Saltation has not been ruled out. Your specimens show clear damage. Besides we were not discussing eolian transport here.

quote:

---

P: I suggest you ask Edge or Joe Meert about possible geologists to contact about diatom identifications,

​

W: OK, Edge & Joe Meert, If you read this you may consider yourselves officially asked for help.

---

I have offered a suggestion. I'm not sure why since you studiously ignore any offerings.

quote:

---

That is a word that theorists (like myself) like to use. We like to reproduce the data with a minimum of parameters and assumptions. We then home in on more details when necessary.

---

Is it necessary for you to do that yet?

quote:

---

Not at all. When one has evidence, it is easy to come up with valid explanations that can be tested and utilized to expand our knowledge base.

​

As we would also say. But when we can both do this to with the same data then we must both admit that we are not coming up with unique solutions.

---

You are not coming up with unique solutions. Besides we are not using the same data. For instance you ignore completely radiometric dating.

quote:

---

Very well, but you have never explained the slow processes that we can see in the geological record. You only look at part of the puzzle.

​

We understand the slow processes of geology the same way you do. Of course continets are drifting slowly today.

---

They were also drifting slowly 60 My ago. Besides how do you accumulate the coral reefs we see in the geological record. And the evaporites. And the fossil record.We have explanations for these things. You have a just-so story...

quote:

---

This does not negate the possibility that this drift is the left over dregs of a 4500 year old catastrophic process.

---

I repeat: we have evidence of slow drift (for instance) in the past. What do you have except, 'Well, golly, it could'a been faster,' ... And you cling to this poor excuse of a story even after you have been shown the consequences of such 'CPT.' Once again, you are compelled to simply ignore this data.

quote:

---

Is it necessary for you to do that yet?

​

Yes professional creationist geologists look at paleocurrents and 2D/3D compositional distribution to come to the conclusion that the geo-col is dominated by (i) nmarine inundation and (ii) high energy events.

---

So, you don't have actual data yet to support your scenario.

quote:

---

You are not coming up with unique solutions. Besides we are not using the same data. For instance you ignore completely radiometric dating.

​

We are both coming up with solutions but they are differnt and obviously not uniqiue. We do not igore radiometric dating. We fully accept the decay patterns and ascribe them to accelerated decay which is what generates catastrophic tectonics.

---

Pure nonsense. You have defined away your problem with radiometric dating. You have not explained it at all. Why are there any matching dates by different methods at all? Why are there patterns that make geological sense? And, most importantly, what is your evidence for accelerated decay?

quote:

---

They were also drifting slowly 60 My ago.

​

Only if you assume constant radiodecay.

---

Give me a reason to not do so.

quote:

---

Besides how do you accumulate the coral reefs we see in the geological record. And the evaporites. And the fossil record.

​

I've given you our just-so solutions before. You have equally big problems with paleocurrents, ...

---

Nonsense. We have explained the paleocurrents. You have simply ignored the explanations.

quote:

---

...huge sorted beds,

---

Gee, I didn't know these things existed! Do you think geologists don't have an explanation? How utterly unbelievable.

quote:

---

....cyclothems etc.

---

These have been explained to you ad nauseum. I repeat: you ignore anything that does not agree with your just-so stories and mythical geology.

quote:

---

The evidecne for high energy events is overwhelming.

---

Yes, millions of them. Along with even more low energy events. All of which you prefer to ignore. Your logic is completely untenable.

Bill,Thank you for bringing your expertise into the discussion.I hope that wmscott sees some of the weaknesses of his arguments and takes them to heart.e

quote:

---

So are there any open minds out there that would like to discuss the Biblical flood?

---

If you were to provide some evidence that a biblical flood actually occurred, we could discuss it. However, in the last year or so, you have only presented us with vague suggestions, questionable logic and unsupported assertions that have been refuted or readily explained by normal, natural processes. Nothing you have given us compels any type of global flood hypothesis.And yes, I am prejudiced. I like to see complete, well-developed arguments that support a position...

quote:

---

Imo, it can also be said that every fossil, every fault, every canyon and in fact, all that's observed is open to more than one valid interpretation.

---

Well, perhaps, when taken by itself. This is an old creationist trick: isolate a factoid and derive the history of the earth from it.

quote:

---

One sees the grand canyon as being slowly eroded to it's present depth over a very long period of time. Others see the great flood of Noah waters backed up above the canyon and breaking through suddenly ...

---

Except that only one of these actually makes sense in relation to all of the known data. If you're holding some out on us, I'd love to hear it.

quote:

---

...to cut the canyon much like the Mt St Hellens canyon was suddenly cut by the daming up of backwather and this breaking loose suddenly to create the canyon.

---

ARRRRRGGGHHH! Not again! (Didn't TC say he was going to quash this abuse of analogies by creationists?)Buz, please give us reasons why you would want to compare fresh, unlithified, proximal pyroclastic deposits in an stratovolcanic setting with highly indurated continental shelf deposits hundreds of times thicker and demonstrably more ancient. This really makes no sense whatever.