Back to the fundamentals

"It occurred to me that the iridium layer at the K-T boundary would provide problems for the "flood model". If the layer has a higher concentration of iridium than lava, how did a THIN global layer of iridium rich rock appear in the turbulent waters of the flood? "
--An irridium rich meteor? Does irridium float, unless it does, I don't think it is logical to start.------------------

"JM: Yes, the element iridium is relatively enriched in meteors. I fail to follow your question about whether it floats or not."
--Yes, though of course we know that it varies considerably in quantity from type to type. My inquisition on its floating capability was my slightly sarcastic assertion in my wonder of what problem mark24 is attempting to point out for this observation and the Flood event:

quote:

---

If the layer has a higher concentration of iridium than lava, how did a THIN global layer of iridium rich rock appear in the turbulent waters of the flood?

---

--Right now my best guess is that he assumed that I did not accept a meteoric origin.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-20-2002]

"No, TC the problem is laying down a fine layer enriched in iridium during a tempest. Such an event is unlikely."
--Not really, it needs a gap in sedimentation for iridium to condense, also, it is comparable with osmium, both being questionably at the peak of highest elemental density. The element would rain right down.------------------

"JM: ROTFL: You need to add flood hydraulics to your reading list!"
--Yup, though this ofcourse does not mean that it is wrong, look at it this way. According to flood theory, where the K-T boundary is, that marks where dinosaurs do not exist beyond this point in the fossil record of course. The given origin of this irridium deposit at the K-T boundary is given by a meteoric origin. The deposit was created post-impact, the dinosaurs and anatomically related became extinct shortly after these impacts. I'm not sure how such hydrolics would keep such elements suspended with no ability to touch submerged ground, ofcourse it would be flying all over the place in the global abyss, but there would be no mechenism to force it not to reach bottom and be deposited.------------------

"John Paul posted this, way back:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.aspThey didn't come up with an answer. Indeed, they specificly stated that they didn't come up with an answer."
--I'll have to read it, It may be informative, up till now, I have myself decided without knowledge of creationist papers such as the one you cited, what strata were flood deposited, right now, It is about the time preceeding single-celled deposition up till somewhere within the Quaternary period, this link may possibly shed some light on this decision.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-20-2002]

"TC, the key is to define the exact strata (globally correlatable) marking the onset and end of the flood. You can, for convenience, use the standard geologic column to supply your answer. We will understand that from your point of view the geologic column was laid down in a short time."
--After reeding, my view hasn't changed, I set Flood sediments at Cambrian --> Tertiary deposits."By naming the exact sequence of strata, we can begin to discuss things like paleosols and how the hell they formed in a global tempest (among the host of other questions you have yet to answer)."
--Yes we can, and concerning paleosols, they of course are not going to form under water, so the existance of paleosols in my view currently would show a time when water had not covered an area during the flood, not sure how many other deposits would form if the earth were totally covered with water such as evaporites and the like."By the way TC, your youthful approach to actually try and find the data is refreshing. Most creationists avoid details such as this like the plague. Perhaps it's because they learned a long time ago that the evidence is against them when details come out."
--Yes unfortunatelly, perhaps. I can say that it is a bit sad how little many creationists know of science, nor how to deal with it, most of the time I get rather frustrated when creationists bud in and attempt to support me (atleast with my chatroom experience). They really don't know much of what they are talking about. While the opponents are sometimes in the same perdicament or they do infact have a sufficient scientific background. I could say however that there are some creationists here that are or may progress in their scientific mind-set."You have not yet figured that out and jump gung-ho into trying to supply us with data. Right, wrong, good or bad, it is admirable for such a young person."
--I'll take this as complementary, thank you Joe ------------------

"Could you possibly shed some light on where the subject and the predicate are in that sentence? Or are you practicing for the Brad McFall look-alike contest?"
--I think that If I were and removed all my commas, I would win! Sorry, I wasn't paying too much attention I see.------------------