Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?
Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Apr 30, 2020 6:03 pm

4619

MAIN ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION?

I'd rather not discuss redshift here, except to the extent that it supports any catastrophist model.

The most relevant issues from my list of questions for each Catastrophist model are
D. how and when sedimentary rock strata formed,
E. how and when mountains formed,
F. what major cataclysms occurred in ancient times, and
G. what caused the cataclysms.

For D (strata), I think Baumgardner explained best how the strata formed via a global flood and Fischer explained best why the flood was global, i.e. because there were no high elevations at that time, there were no mountain ranges etc, and there was only one supercontinent and maybe an island.

For E (mountains), I think Fischer explained best that the mountains formed due to a large impact that occurred toward the end of the flood, which broke up the supercontinent and caused rapid continental drift of the crust over the Moho layer. The mountains formed on the near side of the continents by the initial shock and mountains formed of the far side of continents when the velocity of "drift" slowed enough that friction caused strata to fluidize and fold.

Some of you think EDM, or ionic winds, formed a certain percentage of mountains. You're welcome to present your evidence. So far, I consider the evidence for that very weak. I accept that electrical forces may have dominated, or at least have been a major contributor, but not in those ways, but via ionization of the Moho layer and the bottoms of sliding continents, and in volcanism and earthquakes etc.

For F (ancient cataclysms), I list the Saturn flare-up and system breakup, the meteor bombardment, the temporary Earth-orbiting body, the resulting global flood, the supercontinent-splitting asteroid impact, the post-flood ice age, the Younger Dryas impact/s and other lesser impacts, floods etc thereafter. I consider the main events to have happened likely between 4 and 5 thousand years ago.

For G (causes), they're already hinted at, but I guess we can get to those later in detail.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri May 01, 2020 3:41 pm

CATASTROPHISM
I said yesterday that our main issues are probably Sedimentary Strata, Mountains and Cataclysms. Does anyone agree?

STRATA FORMATION

How and when did Earth's sedimentary rock strata form?

What are the main facts about these strata?
1. They are largely horizontal, except in mountain ranges, where they appear to be folded.
1a. The folds show little or no cracking, so the sediments must have been soft, at least at the folds.
2. The strata occur almost exclusively on continents and large islands, seldom on ocean floors.
3. The 3 main types of sedimentary rock are mudstone (shale), limestone and sandstone.
3a. Mudstone/shale makes up 50-70% of sedimentary rock; limestone makes up about 15%; sandstone makes up about 25%.
4a. Experiments by Berthault show that sorting of sediments into mudstone, sandstone etc occurs under flooding conditions.
4b. Normal rainwater erosion only produces relatively small-area alluvial fans of thin strata, which are sloped about 30(?) degrees.
4c. Flooding produces thicker strata that are horizontal.
4d. Wind erosion, such as dust storms, produce somewhat thick strata of loess and sand.
4e. EDM is known to produce very thin layers of powder on the banks of lightning trenches. Ionic winds are theorized to form ridges.
4f. Mike Fischer claims that high atmospheric pressure holds more CO2 in suspension in ocean water and that, if the pressure became lower during major flooding, the CO2 would precipitate out with lime (CaO etc) to form limestone.
5. Some metamorphic rock, such as in New England, appears to be sedimentary rock strata that was heated and formed granite.
6. Fossils are found almost exclusively in sedimentary rock strata. Fossils are the remains of organisms that have died.
6a. Fossils can only occur when normal decomposition is interrupted. Burial by flooding and other means can interrupt decomposition. Heating, freezing and ionization can affect fossilization.
7. The geologic column is said to be the complete sedimentary rock record, from the basement granite rock to the most recent strata at the top.
7a. The complete geologic column is said to exist in 24 large basins worldwide on the continents.
7b. Basins are theorized to have formed from large meteor impacts. The deepest basin is possibly at the Caspian Sea, which is over 20 km deep, filled with sedimentary rock strata. Other basins are also fairly deep.
8. Sedimentary rock strata cover about 75% of the continents, I think, and average about a mile thick. Some limestone, such as along the Gulf of Mexico, is 7 km or so thick, like in many basins as well.
9. The geologic column consists of 6 megasequences, each of which appear to have been deposited by major flooding during "transgression" (rising water) and sometimes partially removed during "regression" (falling flood water). The Canadian shield and other locations appear to be where regression removed all of the sediment.
9a. The duration between megasequences appears to have been brief, because very little rain erosion appears to have occurred between their depositions.

Everyone is welcome to add other relevant facts about strata, if you like.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Fri May 01, 2020 6:27 pm

7. and 7a. is false. It may be you are using the term "geologic column" but not intending to mean the "accepted" uniformitarian model. I do realise that creationism continues to use the terminology of uniformitarian geology even if they have taken to task its doctrines.

The complete "geologic column" apparently exists in only three known locations on earth accounting for 0.4% of the total surface area of the planet:
Steve Austin wrote:Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.

The notion that the earth's crust has on "onion skin" structure with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system. Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland). Even where the ten systems may be present, geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists! [1]
Furthermore, there are countless locations on earth where not only are layers of the geological column missing, they are also in the wrong order.[2]

There is no established geological column because geological layers are different everywhere, basically. If you're going to assert otherwise, eg. "24 basins", please cite a source for the purposes of critical analysis.

[1] Steve Austin, "Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column," ICR, 1 November 1984, citing J. Woodmorappe, "The essential nonexistence of the evolutionary-uniformitarian geologic column: a quantitative assessment," Creation Res. Soc. Quarterly, 18:46-71, 1981.
[2] Mark Rose, The Noah Code (Genesis Alive LLC, 2015), chapter XIX.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun May 03, 2020 1:34 am

The info about 24 or so basins with fairly complete rock strata records comes from some material I collected a few years ago at:
Great Flood Critique
http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-62/msg269/#msg269

I didn't check to see how complete the record is in those basins, but it makes sense that basins would have a more complete record than highlands, if the basins formed before the Flood or at an early stage, as from impacts. A Creationist site suggested that the basins were formed by impacts. When the Flood tsunamis reached their peaks and started going down, they would have eroded a lot of highland sediments away by sheet erosion. But the basins should have retained most of their sediments.

I believe Baumgardner's and other Creationists' info on the 6 megasequences are largely correct. Do you have reason to doubt that?

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun May 03, 2020 3:15 am

I haven't read enough about Baumgartner's megasequences to comment in an informed manner. My focus is not on geology at the moment, as I am sure you can understand.

I also cannot, at this time, verify the key source in your citations, The Roberston Group. Looking at their website, this information is firmly hidden behind a paywall I have no desire to transgress at this time. Interestingly, I do not seem to be the first to have experienced this particular difficulty. Creationist geologist John Woodmorappe had the same criticism, and even allowing it as a baseline assumption he still destroyed their illogical conclusions:
John Woodmorappe wrote:But where does Morton get his information? He cites as his source the work of the Robertson Group, a London-based oil-consulting company. I have been unable to secure a copy of this work, as it is not listed in either WorldCat or GEOREF. Thus I cannot comment on the accuracy of this source of information, nor discern whether or not its portrayal of sedimentary basins is overly schematic. Evidently, Morton is citing a proprietary source not subject to public scrutiny. But let us, for the sake of argument, grant the complete validity of what the Robertson Group states, as represented by Morton. Even then the claims are overly generalised. For example, Morton’s does not say how given strata had been ‘dated’. Which ‘geologic ages’ had been identified according to the faunal content of the strata, and which had simply been ‘guesstimated’ according to lithological similarity and/or comparable stratigraphic position with faunally-dated sedimentary formations at adjacent locations? All this is moot, however. As noted earlier, since most of the sediment is missing, Morton’s arguments are completely specious even if the Robertson Group work is thoroughly accurate and not excessively schematic in its depiction of the world’s sedimentary basins.

Finally, the number of different locations on earth with the ‘complete’ column is completely irrelevant. After all, regardless of whether there are 10 or 20 or even 50 locations on earth where all ten geologic systems are superposed, there is no escaping the fact that this still totals less than 1% of the earth’s surface. Even this 1% does not include ocean basins. When the ocean basins are included (none of which have more than a few of the ten geologic systems in place), the global figure falls to less than 0.4%.

If this were not enough, the situation gets worse when we include the faunal basis for separating and correlating the lithologies into ‘geologic periods’. As mentioned earlier, only a small fraction of index fossils are superposed at the same location on Earth. This has been documented in my Diluviological Treatise.Therefore, all things considered, scientific creationists are more than justified in concluding that the standard evolutionary-uniformitarian geologic column is, in fact, essentially non-existent.[1]
Woodmorappe goes on to point out Glenn Morton's logical fallacy of overemphasising the "1%" of 'complete' column locations versus 99% of the rest of the world where it is absent (a similar argument I have made regarding official treatments of COVID-19 statistics, mind!!!). How, then, can it be a basis for geological judgment? Just because 26 basins accounting for 0.4% of the earth's surface area exhibit the full column does not exculpate the idea that the entire rest of the world's geology must be calculated on the same stratigraphical principle (just like with COVID-19, 0.003% of the world population has perished in some 120 days of viral 'rampage', why should that determine the completely insane lockdown of the 99.997% of us who are still alive?)
Llyod wrote:A Creationist site suggested that the basins were formed by impacts. When the Flood tsunamis reached their peaks and started going down, they would have eroded a lot of highland sediments away by sheet erosion. But the basins should have retained most of their sediments.
The problem I have with this is that it assumes uniformity of sedimentary deposition worldwide, and that the determining factor in erosion and absence of various layers is simply elevation (basins preserved layers, mountains/heights lost layers). Mark Rose's chapter in ref. 2 above takes this to task. The sediments are not wholly uniform in their deposition anywhere on earth. Each location is a unique child of the utter turbidity and chaos of the Deluge and should not be assessed by or forced to conform to an imaginary global standard. 26 locations of 'complete' geological column only indicate 26 locations where those precise layers had been deposited in that precise order and remained intact during and after the ablative-dispersive stage of the Deluge. Other areas do not share this in common with them and it is simply illogical to force them to.

[1] J. Woodmorappe, "The Geologic Column: Does it exist?" Journal of Creation 13(2):77–82, Nov 1999. Emphasis in bold mine.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon May 04, 2020 2:48 am

4845

GLOBAL ROCK STRATA MEGASEQUENCES

Creationists support megasequences in a modified geologic column. Would it be satisfactory to refer to it as the Flood Geologic Column? You can find megasequences in several articles at https://creation.com/search?q=megasequence
Here are some samples.

JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(2) 2015 || OVERVIEWS
Can ‘megasequences’ help define biblical geologic history?
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29 ... _16-25.pdf
[This says Creationist geologists, Austin, Wise and Snelling first considered the idea of Sloss unconformity-bound sequences as Great Flood megasequences. Then here's a quote re Clarey et al, which is followed by discussion and conclusion, which is similar to your caution, I think. Ed.]
_p.29:
Young-earth creationist Clarey reported on the results of his analyses of transcontinental Sloss stratigraphic sequences, which he also defines as ‘megasequences’:
_“Using data from over 500 stratigraphic columns, I examined megasequences across North America to document the sedimentary evidence for the Flood’s catastrophe. At each site, the megasequence boundaries were identified, along with the thicknesses and extent of individual rock types.”51
_A new seventh megasequence was identified by Clarey at the Midcontinent Rift of North America:
_“Preliminary results demonstrate the presence of a seventh megasequence below the six common fossil-bearing megasequences. It lies just below the Sauk Megasequence in what secularists [i.e. naturalists] call the late Precambrian or Proterozoic Era. However, this newly delineated pre-Sauk sequence may be instrumental in documenting the onset of the Flood.
_“In part, the pre-Sauk megasequence was created by a tremendous outpouring of basaltic lava that split open central North America and caused the Midcontinent Rift.

The Importance of Unconformity-Bounded Sequences in Flood Stratigraphy (1995)
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 23-243.pdf
... In conclusion, it is suggested that megasequences (and their bounding unconformities) can indicate globally-controlled tectonic (including volcanic), tidal, eustatic and hydraulic activity, which would have controlled sedimentation during the Flood. Unconformities are understood to be erosive boundaries created by the combination of tectonic movements, tidal effects, eustasy and hydraulic action. As explained earlier, unconformities do have time significance, as they mark the occurrence of an event in real time which interrupted the otherwise continuous deposition of sediments during the Flood. The determination of MSQs in a region gives the stratigraphic framework of the depositional history of the Genesis Flood for that region. From the correlation of MSQs, it may be possible to construct a Flood stratigraphic framework in which to interpret the depositional history of the Genesis Flood for the entire earth. As Table 10 shows, the example correlation done suggests that five of the inter-regional unconformities defined in each region are possibly world-wide in extent, indicating the possibility that five major tectonic/ eustatic (or other) events were globally-controlled. It is suggested that this concept be adopted for interpreting Flood geology for several reasons, including the fact that MSQs are defined by physical boundaries (unconformities), and are thus lithostratigraphic (as opposed to time stratigraphic [evolutionary]). Each sequence refers to a cluster of strata of varying but continuous (relative) age, that is, continuous deposition (within the sequence/depocentre). It is suggested that MSQs represent more coherent subdivisions of geologic time within a single tectonic domain during the Flood, and should be utilised to replace the presently used uniformitarian geologic time system for analysis of the depositional history of the Genesis Flood.
[Table 10 shows which strata in each several parts of the globe appear to belong in which global megasequence, but prior tables show details.]

The geological column is a general Flood order with many exceptions Michael J. Oard
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_ ... _78-82.pdf
JOURNAL OF CREATION 24 (2) 2010
_In a previous paper, 1 I addressed the question of whether the geological column was indeed a global sequence. I showed that local stratigraphic sections seem to line up with the general order of the geological column at hundreds of locations around the world. But there are many problems with the details.
_Since I believe that the geological column is a general sequence of the Flood, I expect to find some overlap between a Flood classification and the geological column. I advocate the model or classification of Walker, 2 which is similar to the model derived by Whitcomb and Morris in The Genesis Flood. 3
_Whether the geological column represents an exact sequence of Flood events or not can be resolved by applying a geological model that is based on biblical presuppositions. Walker ’ s model is ideally suited to analyzing the rock record because it is based on the true mechanism for the deposition of the strata and incorporates logical stages and phases that can be identified in the field. Comparing Walker’ s model to the geological column reveals several surprises. First, sedimentary rocks labeled Precambrian (if from the Flood), Paleozoic, and Mesozoic strata are early Flood. Second, Cenozoic strata can be early Flood, late Flood, or post-Flood depending upon the location and the particular fossil used to define the Cenozoic. Third, Flood deposition is highly nonlinear with a large percentage of strata deposited early in the Flood. This means the geological column is a general order of Flood deposition but highly nonlinear and with many exceptions.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue May 05, 2020 5:04 pm

4900

Here's a map of sediment thickness, i.e. sedimentary rock mostly, I think.
https://igppweb.ucsd.edu/~gabi/sediment.html

So you can see where the flood waters apparently dumped the most sediment, i.e. the Arctic coast, the N American east coast and esp. Gulf coast, the Caspian and Black Sea areas and the eastern Mediterranean, and the Bay of Bengal by India. Those areas have over 2 km of sediment. The continents are about 70% covered with an average of nearly 2 km.

Here's a map of the major basins around the world, where sedimentary rock is thicker than average.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/basin3.gif
Here are more details along with a critique.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Wed May 06, 2020 2:29 am

Why did Morton only address Woodmorappe's inability to access the Robinson Group's resources and none of his other valid criticisms?

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu May 07, 2020 4:03 pm

4970
JP Michael wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 2:29 am
Why did Morton only address Woodmorappe's inability to access the Robinson Group's resources and none of his other valid criticisms?
I don't know. But it seems trivial to me, since no one here is accepting the conventional geologic column.

CARDONA'S MODEL

Cardona has a wealth of info in his 5 books, but they only seem to cover events he dates as about 10,000 years ago, for which he includes the Younger Dryas event along with the Saturn flare-up etc.

C14.
In reality the Younger Dryas event must have occurred after the Great Flood, since it occurred on strata that the Flood formed. And likewise the Ice Age must have followed the Flood as well, since it also occurred on top of Flood sediment. C14 dating is probably the main reason for dating the events the way he does. So we may need to see why that is. C14 dating is based on detecting C14 in carbon-based material. It takes 5 thousand some years for half of the C14 to decay under normal conditions. It is assumed that the Earth has for millions of years contained the same amount of C14 in the atmosphere, but in reality it seems likely that C14 was produced in different percentages as the Earth went through different stages, esp. cataclysms.

I'd like to analyze this problem in more detail soon, but I don't have much time usually. I welcome comments and links to sources of C14 info.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Fri May 08, 2020 3:39 am

Lloyd, Nick C and I already dealt with some issues concerning C14 in the previous forum thread of this topic.

Forum 2.0, page 9 (start with Nick C's post about 3/4 the way down the page)

There are too many unknown and unprovable assumptions involved in C14 dating for it to be a reliable source of age-dating.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri May 08, 2020 6:10 pm

C14 DATING & RADIOACTIVE FOSSILS
JP Michael wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 3:39 am
There are too many unknown and unprovable assumptions involved in C14 dating for it to be a reliable source of age-dating.
Yes, it's not extremely reliable, but it may have some utility. It may tell us that a carbon-containing specimen is over or under a certain age, if we know enough about its immediate environment. Or it may tell us that the specimen was subjected to radiation or to carbon that was subjected to radiation etc. I've heard of T-rex bones that were radioactive. I want to find out if radioactive contents are common in fossils or are rare.

Here's what a hasty web search gets.
_The reason that dinosaur fossils can be radioactive is because they come from the ground, and radioactive elements are a common component of soils and rock formations all over the earth. In fact, 50 – 80% percent of the heat warming the earth's core is created by the decay of radioactive elements. Mar 23, 2018
_Why Dinosaur Fossils Are Radioactive Sometimes ...
blog.hmns.org › 2018/03 › why-dinosaur-fossils-are-ra...
_Radioactivity in fossils at the Hagerman Fossil Beds ... - NCBI
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pubmed
_Radioactive fossil sites occur primarily within an elevation zone of 900-1000 m above sea level and are most commonly found associated with ancient river channels filled with sand. ... Mineral deposits in geologic strata also show above ambient background levels of radioactivity. by CN Farmer - ‎2008
_Radiation - PaleoPortal Fossil Preparation
preparation.paleo.amnh.org › radiation
_Naturally-occurring radioactive materials are generally not subject to regulation and these specimens do not emit enough radiation to have harmful effects on the ...
_Unusually Radioactive Fossil Bones from Mongolia | Nature
www.nature.com › letters
_PART of the fossil material excavated by Polish–Mongolian palaeontological expeditions to the Gobi Desert in the years 1963–65 (ref. 1) has been found to be ... by Z JAWOROWSKI - ‎1967
_Radioactivity in fossils at the Hagerman Fossil Beds National ...
www.sciencedirect.com
_Since 1996, higher than background levels of naturally occurring radioactivity have been documented in both fossil and mineral deposits at Hagerman Fossil ... by CN Farmer - ‎2008
_On the radioactivity of fossil bones - ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com
_May 1, 1977 - In many fossils a high uranium concentration was found, reaching in some cases values as high as 3 × 10−4 g/g. The 238U content was ...
by S Charalambous - ‎1977
_High Naturally Occurring Radioactivity in Fossil Groundwater ...
sites.nicholas.duke.edu › 2011/08
_In Jordan, fossil groundwater from the Disi aquifer is utilized by the domestic sector in Karak and Aqaba and has long been considered the future drinking water ... by A Vengosh - ‎2009
fossils.
_How radioactive are common fossils? Testing rocks with ...
Did you know that some fossils can accumulate radioactive elements acting like a sponge? Scientists ...
Apr 9, 2017 - Uploaded by KOI
_Natural radioactivity in fossil bones|INIS - International Nuclear
inis.iaea.org
_The results of radioactivity of fossil bones derived from radioactive zones of Siwalik Himalayas of India are reported. Uranium (U) and Thorium (Th) are estimated ... by NP Singh - ‎1993

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun May 10, 2020 5:19 pm

5243

ORIGIN OF EARTH RADIOACTIVITY

My previous post wasn't very helpful, though there are some potentially useful factoids in it.
Walter Brown had a theory for the Great Flood and continental drift that he called the Hydroplate Theory, since it involved the idea that supercritical water occurred about ten miles below the continental crust, which ruptured the crust of the supercontinent and caused the continents on both sides of the rupture to slide away in opposite directions. The rupture formed the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Atlantic Ocean filled the gap between the continents after the rupture. This theory is similar to part of Mike Fischer's model. His model also has the continents sliding apart, but the rupture was caused by the shock forces from an asteroid impact off east Africa. It seems to me that Walter Brown's model can help explain the rupture of Mike Fisher's model. For Mike's model, see http://NewGeology.us . And Walter's model seems to explain Earth radioactivity well. In his online book, he has a chapter on the origin of radioactivity.

The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... vity2.html

He points out that radioactivity occurs almost exclusively in Earth's continental granite crust, not in the ocean floors. It's because granite contains a lot of quartz which is piezoelectric and easily produces electric currents which also contribute to production of radioactive elements. So fossils, such as dinosaur bones, are sometimes fairly radioactive because of the radioactivity produced by the ruptures and sliding continents during the Great Flood. I should look for a world map of radioactivity to see if it's evenly spread over the continents, or is more concentrated where the sliding occurred, i.e. in the Americas, Australia, India and Antarctica. Okay, I found a map here: https://sockrotation.com/2018/01/16/agm ... ve-planet/ . It shows more radioactivity in North America and Eurasia and a little less on the other continents and very little on the ocean floors. I guess the small dark circles may indicate man-made radioactivity. The Himalayas and Alps seem to have the most natural radioactivity.

RADIOACTIVE FOSSILS & C14 DATING

Mike's model includes the fact that Earth likely had a thicker atmosphere before the cataclysm, 2 to 3 times more massive than now, which is why larger flora and fauna were able to live at that time. The thicker atmosphere possibly prevented much C14 formation before the Flood. C14 seems to be formed mainly in the upper atmosphere by UV light transmuting nitrogen, I think. Dinosaur bones have been C14 dated to between 20 and 40 thousand years, because there was less C14 at that time. So the true dates should be much younger, to the time of the Great Flood, between 4 and 5 thousand years ago.

Maybe I'll have time to discuss this in more detail before long.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu May 14, 2020 2:08 pm

5329

FROM WALTER BROWN'S MODEL

The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... wp37558235
www.youtube.com/c/BryanNickel_Hydroplate
SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge piezoelectric voltages.4 For weeks, powerful electrical surges within Earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements that quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive.
Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.5
... Where Is Earth’s Radioactivity? Three types of measurements each show that Earth’s radioactivity is concentrated in the relatively thin continental (granite) crust.
... [T]he amount of heat flowing out of the Earth at specific locations correlates with the radioactivity in surface rocks at those locations.
... This correlation could be explained if most of the heat flowing up through Earth’s surface was generated, not by radioactivity, but by the events that produced that radioactivity. If more heat is coming out of the ground at one place, then more radioactivity was also produced there.
... Logical Conclusions
Because Earth’s radioactivity is concentrated in the crust, three corollaries (or other conclusions) follow:
1. The Earth did not evolve. Had the Earth evolved from a swirling dust cloud (“star stuff”), radioactivity would be spread throughout the Earth. It is not.
2. Supernovas did not produce Earth’s radioactivity. Had supernovas spewed out radioisotopes in our part of the galaxy, radioactivity would be spread throughout the Earth. Again, it is concentrated in continental granite.
3. The Earth was never molten. Had the Earth ever been molten, denser elements and minerals (such as uranium and zircons) would have sunk toward the center of the Earth. Instead, they are at the Earth’s surface. [I disagree. The crust probably was not molten after the radioactive elements formed during the Great Flood.]

The above are quotes from Brown. I hope to get more of his details to post soon. Below are some more facts about radioactivity from other sources.

Natural Radioactivity in the Geologic Environment
https://cemp.dri.edu/cemp/workshop2009/ ... nviron.pdf
Relative Original Occurrence of Radioactive Elements in Rocks
Common: Granite; Shale; Bedded Phosphate; Coal
Occasional: Andesite; Conglomerate; Sandstone; Slate>Gneiss; Metaconglomerate
Rare: Basalt; Limestone; Bedded Gypsum/Salt; Quartzite; Marble
(One type of granitic rock in which radioactive minerals are particularly common is the very coarse-grained variety known as pegmatite.)

Radioactive Elements in the Continental Crust
K. S. HEIER
Nature volume 208, pages 479–480 (1965)
Published: 30 October 1965
https://www.nature.com/articles/208479b0
Abstract
THE radioactive elements are particularly useful as indicators of the chemical composition of the deeper parts of the crust. Thorium, uranium, and potassium show a strong concentration towards the surface of the Earth and are enriched in the continental crust. The abundance of thorium, uranium and potassium can be estimated by two independent methods; a physical method based on heat-flow data, and a geochemical method based on geological premises. These estimates differ by a factor of two (Table 1). The estimates for the heat-flow data are from Clark and Ringwood1, and are based on a 37-km-thick two-layer crust. The upper layer is 16 km thick, resting on a layer 21 km thick. Calculations of the concentrations of thorium, uranium and potassium within each layer for different heat flows are given in Table 2. It is noteworthy that the concentrations of the radioactive elements in the 16-km layer in regions with high heat flow are comparable with the geochemical estimates made on the basis of the new abundance data by Clark et al.2. The concentrations calculated for the lower layer are similar to those in basalts. This could indicate that this layer has a basaltic composition. How ever, metamorphic processes, including generation of granite magma, and the cycling of elements within the crust could also account for the low concentrations of radioactive elements in the deep crust3–5. These processes would result in a more mafic average composition of the lower crust as compared with the higher crust3–8. There is also some indication5 that high-grade metamorphic rocks, especially those of granulite facies, have lower concentrations of thorium and uranium than magmatic rocks of comparable chemical composition, so that the upward concentration of thorium and uranium in the crust could be more marked than that of potassium.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri May 15, 2020 6:02 pm

5365

MORE DETAILS ON BROWN'S MODEL

Theories for the Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... vity3.html
The Hydroplate Theory.
_In the centuries before the flood, supercritical water (SCW) in the subterranean chamber steadily dissolved the more soluble minerals in the rock directly above and below the chamber. [Pages 129– 130 explain SCW and its extreme dissolving ability.] Thin spongelike channels, filled with high-pressure SCW, steadily grew up into the increasingly porous chamber roof and down into the chamber floor.
_The flood began when the granite crust ruptured, and subterranean water escaped violently upward through the globe-encircling rupture. Pillars had to support more of the crust’s weight, because the subterranean water supported less. Tapering downward like icicles, the pillars crushed in stages, beginning at their tips. With each collapse and with each water-hammer cycle, the crust fluttered like a flag held horizontally in a strong wind. Each downward “flutter” rippled through the Earth’s crust and powerfully slammed what remained of pillars against the subterranean chamber floor. [ See “Water Hammers and Flutter Produced Gigantic Waves” on page 197.]
_For weeks, compression-tension cycles within both the fluttering crust and pounding pillars generated piezoelectric voltages that easily reached granite’s breakdown voltage.80 Therefore, powerful electrical currents discharged within the crust repeatedly, along complex paths of least electrical resistance. [See Figures 12–15.]

LK: IMO, Brown's idea above may explain partly how the supercontinent was weakened where the supercontinent ruptured, such as the east coast of the Americas, which then slid over the Moho layer a few thousand miles from Afro-Eur-Asia. But an asteroid impact north of Madagascar is what provided the main force to push the continents apart. Other impacts before the big one likely also weakened the crust where the rupture occurred, as is evidenced by some flood basalt locations etc. Below are some details for how he explains radioactivity production in the continents during the Flood event.
...
_The Ukrainian experiments described on page 399 show that a high-energy, Z-pinched beam of electrons inside a solid produces superheavy elements that quickly fission into different elements that are typical of those in Earth’s crust. Fusion and fission occur simultaneously, each contributing to the other—and to rapid decay. While we cannot be certain what happens inside nuclei under the extreme and unusual conditions of these experiments, or what happened in the Earth’s crust during the flood, here are three possibilities:
_a. Electron Capture. Electrons that enter nuclei convert some protons to neutrons—a common event called electron capture.
...
_b. Shock Collapse.86 Electrical discharges through the crust vaporize rock along very thin, branching paths “drilled” by gigavolts of electricity through extremely compressed rock. Rock along those paths instantly becomes a high-pressure plasma inside thin rock channels. The shock wave generated by the electrical heating suddenly expands the plasma and the surrounding channel walls, just as a bolt of lightning expands the surrounding air and produces a clap of thunder. As that rock rebounds inward—like a giant, compressed spring that is suddenly released—the rock collapses with enough shock energy to drive (or fuse) nuclei together at various places along the plasma paths. This frequently happens deep in the crust where the rock is already highly compressed.
Superheavy elements quickly form, fission, and decay into such elements as uranium and lead. The heat released propels the plasma and new isotopes along the channels. As the channels contract, flow velocities increase. The charged particles and new elements are transported to sites where minerals are grown, one atom at a time.
_c. Z-Pinch. As explained on page 392 and in , the path of each electrical charge in a plasma is like a “wire.” All “wires” in a channel are pinched together, but at each instant, pinching forces act only at the points occupied by moving charges, and each force is the sum of the electromagnetic forces produced by all nearby moving charges. Therefore, the closer the “wires,” the greater the self-focusing, pinching force, so the “wires” become even closer, until the strong force merges (fuses) nuclei.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon May 18, 2020 4:00 pm

5621

ELECTRICAL FORCES PRODUCED CONTINENTAL RADIOACTIVITY

In the previous post I quoted Brown:
_The Ukrainian experiments described on page 399 show that a high-energy, Z-pinched beam of electrons inside a solid produces superheavy elements that quickly fission into different elements that are typical of those in Earth’s crust.

Here's what he said on page 399:
_Since February 2000, thousands of ... experiments at the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research Lab in Kiev, Ukraine have ... produc[ed] traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes.32 In those experiments, a ... milisecond 50,000 volt electron flow at relativistic speeds, self-focuses (Z-pinches) inside a hemispherical electrode target, typically .5mm in diameter. The relative abundance of chemical elements produced generally corresponds to what is in the Earth's crust. "... the statistical mean curves of the abundance of chemical elements created in our experiments are close to those characteristic in the Earth's crust.33"
_Each experiment uses one of 22 separate electrode matgerials, including copper, silver, platinum, bismuth, and lead, each at least 99.90% pure. ... [T]he energy of an electron pulse ... less than 300 joules ... is focused [via Z-pinch] onto a point inside the electrode, [which] instantly becomes the center of a tiny sphere of dense plasma. With ... more than 10^13 electrons flowing through the center of this plasma sphere, the surrounding nuclei, [or] positive ions, implode onto that center. Compression from this implosion easily overcomes the normal Coulomb repulsion between ... positive [ions]. The resulting fusion produces superheavy chemical elements, some twice as heavy as uranium and some that last for a few months.34 All eventually fission, producing a wide variety of new chemical elements and isotopes.
_... [T]emperatures in this "hot dot" ... reach 3.5x10^8K [and t]he electrodes rupture with a flash of ... x-rays and gamma rays. ... The total energy in this "hot dot" is about four orders of magnitude greater than the electrical energy input. However, ... the heat is absorbed by elements heavier than iron that are produced by fusion. Therefore, the entire experiment produces little heat. The new elements result from a "cold repacking" of the nucleons of the target electrode.35 …

ELECTRICAL FORCES DOMINATE GEOLOGY
_See Charles Chandler's explanation of how electrical forces & lunar tides formed the Moho plasma layer under the continents and oceans at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=11093
_How electrical forces produce Earthquakes: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9981
_How electrical forces produce Volcanic Eruptions: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=10527

CATASTROPHISM PARTIAL SUMMARY
Combining John Baumgardner's, Dwardu Cardona's, Walter Brown's, Mike Fischer's and Charles Chandler's models, we get the Moon or other body began orbiting the Earth about 5,000 years ago, which produced the Moho plasma layer under the continents etc; meteor impacts weakened the crust of the supercontinent, which had low elevations, no mountains; the elliptically orbiting body produced tidal waves that caused the Great Flood and produced the sedimentary rock layers about a mile thick on the supercontinent; meteor impacts removed about half of the atmosphere, killing megafauna and megaflora and forming limestone strata; an asteroid impact east of Africa split up the supercontinent and caused rapid continental drift of the Americas a few thousand miles westward and causing mountain ranges to form; the Moon's orbit circularized, no longer causing huge tidal waves; an Ice Age was caused by impact dust and volcanic dust; later impacts on the ice sheets occurred, destroying much of the North American biosphere; and finally, civilization was rebuilt when impacts became less frequent and less severe.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest