Back to the fundamentals

quote:

---

--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.CheersJoe Meert

​

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

No, TC the problem is laying down a fine layer enriched in iridium during a tempest. Such an event is unlikely.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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!CheersJoe Meert

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. 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). 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. 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.CheersJoe MeertCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:

​

They don't really seem to accomplish much, but I am impressed with their facing up to the real problems of fitting the Noahtic flood into the "big picture". In all, probably the best creationist flood geology web page I have encountered (IMO).

---

JM: Actually, I had see that discussion when it first came out. What they are basically confessing to is that there can be no useful 'flood stratigraphy'. If I understand their premise the flood deposits can be indentified by their energy requirements. This is going to lead to a whole host of problems for interpreting the flood. What happens when a sequence goes from 'high-energy' (never really defined by the way) to 'low-energy' (never really defined either) back to 'high energy'? Does this indicate the global flood waxed and waned? What about places where we only see 'low-energy' environments? Surely a global flood would affect the globe. Thirdly, if creationists switch to this definition, they lose all their (admittedly stupid) 'hydraulic sorting' arguments. The main conclusion from their paper is that creationist geology does not fit the observations! Of course, we've known this for a couple of hundred years! This paper is more damning of yec geology than I think the authors intended!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Moose we are saying that the flood occurred in surges - due to tectonic and tidal action we presume. The more and more I think about it our models are not that different to yours - ours just happened very quick. You guys have continents being inundated on - what - about 8 occasions isn't it? I've seen the global sea level data through geolgoical time and it tells this story. I know we have major differences but there are some similarities.

---

JM: Nope, the models are quite distinct. There is no time in the Phanerozoic where the entire earth was inundated simultaneously. Our models are VERY different from yours because we rely on evidence whereas yours rely on unsupported (and borrowed) mythology.CheersJoe Meert