I want to break here. First, you assume that the ONLY way to look at the
Genesis record is to have a Global flood. You can have a flood that
precisely matches the Biblical account and it still be local. I would refer
you to my article in the December Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith. Unless you can demonstrate that there is absolutely no other way to
explain the data of Genesis 6-9 then you can't claim that the Bible MUST be
interpreted as you suggest.
how fast would you expect sedimentation rates to drop to
>present levels?
Since I don't believe in a global flood, you really don't want my guess. I
would suggest that the rate would immediately drop to modern levels. Since
you do, it really would be your job to suggest such a rate and then we can
look at the geologic record and see if that is falsified by the data. I
>
> I could show that the 30,000 feet of sediment at the mouth of
>>the Mississippi must also be post flood yet from the quantity of sediment
>>load is tripled over what we now see, the Mississippi River would take 30
>>million years to fill up that much sediment.
>
>The Mississippi River Valley is much wider than the present meanders.
All rivers fit that description. The wide valley is call a flood plain. It
is the width of the river that is carved as the meanders "wiggle" back and
forth over several centuries and is carved at maximum flood times.
This
>reminds me of the small-meander-in-a-wide-valley which formed practically
>overnight by Mount Saint Helens (March 19, 1982, when a large volume of
>snow melted by steam gushed down carrying ash from the summit), which
>necessitated re-evaluation of the "gradual widening" hypothesis for river
>valley formation, and required what I call a "gush and trickle" scenario
>for formation of the observed rapidly-formed wide valley and narrow
>meander.
I don't know where you heard that Mt. St. Helens required some sort of major
revision to geomorphological theory, but it didn't. I suspect that you got
that from Steve Austin's work. Could you cite an article in which someone
other than Austin claims that such a revision took place? I haven't seen it
in the literature.
>
>The Mississippi drainage is on a much larger scale. But why assume that
>its flow rate, and consequent delta deposition rate, has always been about
>as today? Surely both were greater in the pluvial period, and would have
>been *much* greater if the whole mid-continent drained throuh it rapidly
>(i.e., in a few years/decades) at the end of the flood.
> Notice the pattern
>of K- Paleocene- Eocene- Oligo- Mio- Plio- Pleist sediments on a geological
>map of North America.
This is due to the gradual progradation of sediments into the Gulf of
Mexico. And all those sediments contain different fossils. If all this
occurred over a period of weeks, how did the microscopic forms of life
become very strictly layered in those sediments.
Foraminifera are very small, microscopic forms of life. Each species has a
skeleton with a unique shape that is easily distinguishable from the others.
Paleontologists give different names to the various forms. In a turbulent
flood, these small forms should be very thoroughly mixed up with no order to
them. Yet we find such an order.
Benthic forams (those that live on the ocean bottom) are found in this order
Oligocene
Nodosaria blanpiedi
Nonion struma
Marginulina texana
Cibicides hazzardi
Miogypsinoides A
Camerina A
Textularia 14
Marginulina howei
Marginulina vaginata
Marginulina idiomorpha
Bolivina perca
Cibicides jeffersonensis
Heterostegina sp.
Discorbis gravelli
Robulus A
early Miocene forams
Cristellaria R
Lenticulina hanseni
Planulina palmerae
Siphonina davisi
Marginulina A
Cristellaria A
Discorbis B
Gyroidina 9
Robulus Mayeri
Camerina 1
Middle Miocene forams
Robulus L
Amphistegina B
Cibicides opima
Cristellaria I
Bigenerina humblei
textularia W
Uvigerina 3
Cibicides carstensi
Bigenerina 2
Upper Miocene forams
Bolivina L
Textularia L
Bolivina thalmanni
Discorbis 12
Cristallaria K
Bigenerina A
Robulus E
Pliocene forams
Textularia X
Textularia mexicana
Buliminella 1
Bolivina imporcata
Lenticulina 1
Cristellaria S
Pleistocene forams
Angulogerina B
H. Balthica (I forgot what the H stands for)
Trimosina A
Each of the above is found in the order I listed. Bolivina imporcata is
always above the Buliminella 1 and below the Lenticulina 1. Given a world
wide flood model you must postulate that these animals had to invariably
find the correct order to land in the sediments. INVARIABLY.
We don't find Nonion struma in with the Pleistocene forms! There are other
lists for calcareous nannoplankton and planktonic forams.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm