Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,903 Year: 4,160/9,624 Month: 1,031/974 Week: 358/286 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 158 of 411 (122005)
07-05-2004 2:53 AM


We all know that Walt Browns liquefication/water lensing is a quite interesting theory/science explaining fossil sorting (settling within the liquefication suspended sediments water lens)as the fossils sorted upwards, you all should realize more than one varve can be laid down per year, like whats being seen formed via undercurrents, similar to Walts liquefication water lensing principles, etc... Like how can one be bound to only one annual varve per year, when you have studies like the Bear Lake varve demonstrating the linkages with sedimentation and hydroclimate that can vary overtime, and like how would not these under currents not be affecting varves in kettle lakes formed as the glaciers melted, contributing their silt/organics from the flood, as these glacier waters formed via the flood melted, etc...
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/LamoureuxAIn.html
The results from the Bear Lake varve record underscore the importance of process work for interpreting the hydroclimatic record contained in the sediments, and demonstrate that the linkages between sedimentation and hydroclimatic processes may change with time.
P.S. We see examples like Lake Walensee, Switzerland, where they have proof that more than one annual varve can be laid down per year.
Page not found – Creation In The Crossfire
I also heard a ww2 plane was found buried in the ice, and when they dug it out the snow varves didn't add up to them being annual varves, cause the annual varves would of placed the plane being buried before the war. I guess scientists will have to move a glacier to account for the extra varves, even though they have a lot of snow falls to easily account for the depth of the burial, its interesting that the plane was buried on a stable ice field (one thats not moving), etc...
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
One last point, acquifiers are sediments that are not yet compressed into sedimentary rock, these acquifiers are the leftover evidences of the biblical flood liquefication water lens event, the problem were finding within municipalities that draw these acquifiers down, is that the macro space containing the waters compress and once the acquifier sediments are compressed the acquifier is unable to uncompressed via the rainwater recharge principle, more evidence that these sediments were laid down within the bibilical flood, via the principle of liquefication/water lensing, its like mineral water, not salt water, more evidence of the world flood, because these waters are like fossils, cause only a world flood could explain the fresh waters within the sediments, its not like salt water that bonds the colloids affecting sediment layerings over the oceans, more evidence supporting the fresh water lensing over the continents, varves, the freshwater water table, etc...
You then have the rocks still rising up each year in the farmers fields, via the frost pressing them up. These rocks were sorted quite recently, supporting the biblical flood was the event that caused the glaciation that was a part of the sorting of these rocks, frost only goes approximately 3.5 ro 4 feet deep(the reason contractors lay foundations below the frost level so the frost doesn't lift your foundations), if these rocks were laid down millions of years ago, would they not of already all surfaced via the frost pressing them annually upwards to the earths surface.
This message has been edited by whatever, 07-05-2004 10:17 AM

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 209 of 411 (122869)
07-08-2004 1:56 AM


AdminNosy/NosyNed,
You asked me a question and I answered you, I don't know what your problem is, why ask a question you want an answer to, when you know its off topic, Ned, you were off topic being an administrator, to request an answer off topic, even though I answered on topic, if glaciers were formed suddenly then Razd's correlations pre-flood are in error, you by not being able to provide evidence that the glaciers drew down the oceans, are in fact supporting my premise, that Razd's correlations have no merit, cause of the bear lake study that never was addressed, that glaciers can affect the sedimentation layerings, or in this thread fossil sorting(cause they are dating the organic remains affected by leaching), etc...
P.S. However, its an abuse of powers, when an administrator asks a question, requesting an answer from a member, so to then ban someone for answering his requested question, etc...
This message has been edited by whatever, 07-08-2004 02:58 AM

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024