How old is the earth?

[Southtown]

Liquifaction does not require earthquake frequency waves of course, but even as the pages you're citing say, it has the effect of sorting the effected layers by density, and the problem is that the layers in fact show no specific sorting whatsoever. They're just layers with all sorts of different densities randomly distributed up and down through them.

Not so random... The strata occur in a repeating pattern, do they not? The process would not perfectly sort everything, but the effects would be noticeable.

 

Besides, the fact that they are basically pure deposits, rather than just compressed soil, requires a mechanism(s) for separation.

 

Part of the argument seems to be that the fossils would move through the layers without disturbing them, and whether they are high frequency (earthquake induced) or low-frequency (the water bottle experiment shown on the referenced page), you'll get movement of everything, depending on the "completeness" of the mixing that is allowed by the frequency in conjunction with the exposure time. Thus, if there were originally strata showing and the fossils moved up and down, you'd either see the strata disolve and re-form based purely on their density (good mixing) or trails through them (poor mixing like you see with houses sinking in earthquakes).

The fossils would traverse layers until they became too dense. As the strata became dense enough to deform, the organisms would not be able to penetrate them, even if they were trying to.

 

Also, consider the water lensing effect of uplifting water changing velocity through the different layers.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction5.html

 

The arguments on these pages also seem to ignore (among other things) the fact that liquifaction is also affected by granularization, viscosity/lubrication, and porosity of the the substances that are involved, which basically mean that certain substances don't really have the claimed effects (clay is not really a "light" substance subject to easy runoff...).

Exactly, clay particles are flat. Water rising between particles, during the pressure release of a wave crest, would lift these particles more than the others. I apologize if "light" was the wrong word to use, but they could also apply, and could be looked for to accompany the more aerodynamically-challenged sediments.

 

The continental run-off of a global flood could accomplish a clay wash, I would wager. Though, less force of current would be available in the basins, rivers, and deltas.

[Buffy]

Not so random... The strata occur in a repeating pattern, do they not?

Yep. Repeating is the key phrase here: if its liquifaction you would see the sorting much closer to light-to-heavy density, but all we see is layers that are only really obtainable by layering of run-off from different soils over time. In fact, the strata show no density sorting whatsoever!

The process would not perfectly sort everything, but the effects would be noticeable.

Absolutely agree. As with my last sentance here, there's *nothing* noticeble in the density of the strata.

Besides, the fact that they are basically pure deposits, rather than just compressed soil, requires a mechanism(s) for separation.

Not pure, in run off you have a couple of effects that cause "sorting": topsoil is modified by organic effects and weather/climate move layers and transform denser rocks of various types based on geologic events (volcanism, earthquakes exposing layers deep below the topsoil etc. When run off occurs, it tends to go through moving different types of soils at different times, creating layers with different compositions.

 

Even if these were pure, their density is never sorted.

The fossils would traverse layers until they became too dense.

Compared to rock, bones are far less dense, and if liquifaction were a huge factor, you'd see all of them floating to the top before they had a chance to fossilize (I'll leave out here the whole discussion of how much time it takes to turn a bone into a fossil...).

Exactly, clay particles are flat. Water rising between particles, during the pressure release of a wave crest, would lift these particles more than the others.

They could have aerodynamic properties, that's true, however what we are learning about how different sized and shaped granules work under pressure shows that the shapes are actually a hindrance in flow, where shapes can actually cause locking.

 

Given the fact that major portions of the flood experiment could be replicated in a 40 year period even with man made devices, its a wonder that more experimentation has not shown any of the described results to work....

 

Inundated,

Buffy

[LOC]

Not so random... The strata occur in a repeating pattern, do they not? The process would not perfectly sort everything, but the effects would be noticeable.

Individual rock types may or may not repeat, but even if they do, there is not necessarily a 'pattern.'

 

According to mainstream geology, sedimentation is controlled by depositional environment, climate, sediment source, sediment type/size/etc., and others.

 

As I am not familiar with the effects of liquefaction, perhaps you can explain the sorts of internal structures, textures we would expect to see in sediment affected by liquefaction. I'm particularly interested in how liquefaction can create crossbeds, channels (filled with cobbles or sand or mud) and how it can sort fossils based solely on their morphology with no indication either visible or correlative in the rocks themselves.

[Southtown]

Yep. Repeating is the key phrase here: if its liquifaction you would see the sorting much closer to light-to-heavy density, but all we see is layers that are only really obtainable by layering of run-off from different soils over time. In fact, the strata show no density sorting whatsoever!

. . .

Absolutely agree. As with my last sentance here, there's *nothing* noticeble in the density of the strata.

. . .

Not pure, in run off you have a couple of effects that cause "sorting": topsoil is modified by organic effects and weather/climate move layers and transform denser rocks of various types based on geologic events (volcanism, earthquakes exposing layers deep below the topsoil etc. When run off occurs, it tends to go through moving different types of soils at different times, creating layers with different compositions.

 

Even if these were pure, their density is never sorted.

. . .

Compared to rock, bones are far less dense, and if liquifaction were a huge factor, you'd see all of them floating to the top before they had a chance to fossilize (I'll leave out here the whole discussion of how much time it takes to turn a bone into a fossil...).

Your continued reference to density suggests that the main mechanism was gravity, correct? Particles falling past each other? The main mechanism, though, was pressure.

 

They could have aerodynamic properties, that's true, however what we are learning about how different sized and shaped granules work under pressure shows that the shapes are actually a hindrance in flow, where shapes can actually cause locking.

Exactly, my point. Upward flow hinderances (more accurately the changing of) caused water lenses to form in the sediments. Remember the context of this theory makes it very muddy water being repeatedly pressurized and depressurized by unimpeded waves so that the water is forced up and down between particles.

 

As the wave crests passed over, pressure increased, and water was push downward between particles. During wave troughs, however, pressure was decreased and the water began to flow back up through the particles. This would no doubt exhibit a lifting effect.

 

The amount of upward motion of particles varied depending on their shape. Variations in aerodynamics determined the upward thrust applied to each sedimentary particle. The effect would be layering, because like particles would be acted upon in like manner.

 

Water lensing would occur when upward flow bottlenecked, or encountered less aerodynamic particles and flowed slower past them, lifting them with more force. The water flowing faster from one layer than it flowed into the subsequent layer created a pocket of water waiting to squeeze through the tighter spaces between the less aerodynamic particles. Since the "cleanness" of the lines between layers increased slightly with each pressure cycle, lensing was a gradual effect.

 

Given the fact that major portions of the flood experiment could be replicated in a 40 year period even with man made devices, its a wonder that more experimentation has not shown any of the described results to work....

http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/html/what/what1.html

 

Liquefaction is a process where upward pressure allows particles to move freely past each other. I don't know why you would question it. But, I too find it curious that few wish to even consider theories such as this.

 

As I am not familiar with the effects of liquefaction, perhaps you can explain the sorts of internal structures, textures we would expect to see in sediment affected by liquefaction. I'm particularly interested in how liquefaction can create crossbeds, channels (filled with cobbles or sand or mud) and how it can sort fossils based solely on their morphology with no indication either visible or correlative in the rocks themselves.

Excellent questions. I hope the above explanation (and links) shed some light on what I'm trying to say.

1. Crossbeds are strata that were compressed horizontally when the ruptured crust fragments contracted and formed continents.
   http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction7.html
   http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview6.html
   
2. I think I explained the channels previously. Consider the Grand Canyon. If it were cut by a gigantic lake breaching its shore line, the water would carve the canyon with peak pressure. But trailing pressure would leave rocks, boulders, and a few topmost sedimentary layers. Also, the initial receding floodwater would cut its own canyons in the crust and lower strata, while remaining water would deposit more strata. Boulders and rocks would no doubt be deposited first, and currents would carry them into any trenches in the lower sediments.
   
3. The explanation is simple for the sorting by morphology as well if you recall the liquefaction description: aerodynamics, weight, etc. But also add to that their natural habitats. Land-dwelling creatures, aquatic creatures, and aeronautic creatures would all experience the situation differently.

There is a difference between this and Buffy's imagery, though. The organisms did not fall through the strata, they were merely lifted more slowly during the low pressure phase, if they were low-drag. Which way organisms drifted would depend on their weight-to-drag ratio relative to the surrounding sediments, not just weight or density alone. It would stand to reason that most organisms did make it to the top where they quickly decayed before fossilization.

 

Additionally, the organisms were lubricated with water, just as the particles were, and slipped past each other quite easily without deforming the strata, while being slightly suspended during the low pressure phase. I think most of them appear to be inbetween layers, but I'm not sure. The high pressure phase however, probably impeded all movement.

[Pyrotex]

LOC, thanks for asking me to butt out. You have performed an amazing job in this lucid conversation and my hat (size 6 7/8) is off to you.

 

I would like to contribute an aside which may be of interest to all in this thread:

 

There was an amazing recantation made by a notable geologist, Reverend Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873), Woodwardian Professor of Geology at Cambridge University, and at the time of his 'recantation' President of the Geological Society of London. He was a highly respected geologist (and is still considered to be one of the greatest geologists of all time), and until shortly before that address was considered to be one of the staunchest supporters of the [Noachian] deluge as a major event in the history of the earth. He said (I quote):

 

...But theories of diluvial gravel, like all other ardent generalizations of an advancing science, must ever be regarded but as shifting hypotheses to be modified by every new fact, till at length they become accordant with all the phenomena of nature.

 

In retreating where we have advanced too far, there is neither compromise of dignity nor loss of strength; for in doing this, we partake but of the common fortune of every one who enters on a field of investigation like our own....

 

Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.

 

To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

 

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood.... (Sedgwick, 1831, p. 312-314)

 

This statement is exceptional not so much because it displays the courage to publicly admit to significant error (although such courage is both admirable and sadly rare), but more because of who made the declaration, when, and why. Sedgwick’s speech predates the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” by 34 years. Well before the middle of the 19th Century, it was already clear that the Noachian Flood could not account for the geological evidence.

 

Carry on my wayward sons! :hihi:

[Southtown]

Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period.

How would that be established exactly, in the context of the early 1800's?

[Buffy]

Your continued reference to density suggests that the main mechanism was gravity, correct? Particles falling past each other? The main mechanism, though, was pressure.

Well density in conjuction with both fluid pressure and gravity is why the densist substances sort themselves to the bottom of a sufficiently agitated viscous amalgam. This is an easy experiment to perform on your kitchen table, and in fact its pretty standard fare in geology programs. Yes in partially agitated (whether by earthquake or slow undulation of water tables), shapes have very significant impacts on how things are sorted, but they still *tend* toward density sorting. Nothing replicates the kinds of effects that are being claimed within creation science.

Water lensing would occur when upward flow bottlenecked, or encountered less aerodynamic particles and flowed slower past them, lifting them with more force...

This works on very small scales obviously, but in full liquifaction, this "bottleneck" effect is totally overwhelmed. If you're trying to use any liquifaction strong enough to produce the claimed effects, this small scale bottlenecking would be completely insignificant.

 

Again, this is a table top experiment. I strongly suggest you try it yourself!

The organisms did not fall through the strata, they were merely lifted more slowly during the low pressure phase, if they were low-drag. Which way organisms drifted would depend on their weight-to-drag ratio relative to the surrounding sediments, not just weight or density alone. It would stand to reason that most organisms did make it to the top where they quickly decayed before fossilization.

Here the aero-dynamical properties would produce completely different sorting than what we find. Once the connective tissue was dissolved, according to this theory more aerodynamic bones would float up higher than the less aerodynamic bones. This of course is not what we see, and again, table top experiments prove otherwise....

Additionally, the organisms were lubricated with water, just as the particles were, and slipped past each other quite easily without deforming the strata, while being slightly suspended during the low pressure phase. I think most of them appear to be inbetween layers, but I'm not sure. The high pressure phase however, probably impeded all movement.

Liquifaction enough to allow "slipping" would again either show "trails" around the edges due to the slipping (take a look at any wind-tunnel experiment: these work at low-speed in high-viscosity environments identical to high-speed in low-viscosity), or there would be enough liquifaction to cause sorting of the less granular elements that would disrupt the strata. Can be shown experimentally....

 

Try it! You may not like it!

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

How would that be established exactly, in the context of the early 1800's?

Geology was one of the "natural history" rages that swept Europe and especially the British Isles in the late 18th, early 19th Centuries. In England, it was predominantly clergymen who took up geology as a "hobby", and then as a serious research effort. Books on geology began being published and reviewed during this time, and courses in geology started being taught at Oxford and Cambridge.

 

This process reached its peak with Edward (Eduard ) Suess (1831-1914), distinguished geologist of the late Nineteenth Century. The theory of continental drift has been around for a long time. Sir Francis Bacon noted as early as 1620 that the continents seemed to fit together. In 1756, Lilienthal noted that "the facing coasts of many countries, though separated by the seas, have a congruent shape” Edward Suess, an Austrian geologist living in the late nineteenth Century, coined the name "Gondwanaland" for a supercontinent that included all the continents of the southern hemisphere and India; and “Laurasia,” encompassing all the northern continents. From 1885 to 1909, he published a series of volumes related to the "theory of [continental] separation".

http://www.oceansonline.com/continen.htm

 

His revolutionary book, Antlitz der Erde (The face of the Earth), was an elaborate survey of the "face of the earth," the whole earth, a description of all the irregularities of its crust, the mountains, the seas and lakes, the valleys, the river beds and deltas, an attempt to explain the deformations and foldings which led to the earth's present appearance…

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=LibraryArchive

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Class/wschafer/GH93/ghRealty.htm

http://www.jpdawson.com/pelgnet/pelchap2/chap2.html

 

A large percentage of the information he presented in that book was gathered during the previous century by clergy geologists such as the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, many of whom were missionaries in scattered parts of the world.

 

Suess categorized and summarized for the whole Earth what had already become understood by other individuals for smaller pieces of the Earth's surface. This understanding came from decades of laborious searching through mountains, ravines, valleys, everywhere any portion of a cross-section of geologic history was visible, and meticulously putting those observations on paper. These papers were published and read by an enormously eager army of fellow natural historians (many of whom were clergy) trying to fit together all the patters -- and make them fit the Biblical flood story.

 

Sedgwick spoke for himself, of course, but in actuality, his "recantation" spoke for an entire generation of geologists who were finally admitting to each other and to themselves, that the Naochian Deluge Theory of geology just didn't work, and couldn't be forced to work. Lord knows, they tried. Given their theological backgrounds and spiritual culture, nobody could have tried harder.

[Southtown]

Sedgwick spoke for himself, of course, but in actuality, his "recantation" spoke for an entire generation of geologists who were finally admitting to each other and to themselves, that the Naochian Deluge Theory of geology just didn't work, and couldn't be forced to work.

The pangea theory is close to the truth. The continents are obviously a fragmented whole. The difference between that and the hydroplate is the additional evidence of the strata, oceanic ridges and trenches, various other characteristics such as underground caverns, plumes/domes, and of course the verity of mechanism.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview9.html

 

From what I read of Sedgwick, he was claiming the upper minor portions of soil above the strata as proof of a global flood. And his concession was promted by others demonstrating how nature could produce these upper soil characteristics.

 

The hydroplate, however, claims the lower strata as proof of a global flood, and leaves the upper portions of mixed sediment as evidence that that nature couldn't produce strata, even after billions of years. Point being, Sedgwick's reasons for concession are not detrimental to, but rather support, the hydroplate.

 

Yes in partially agitated (whether by earthquake or slow undulation of water tables), shapes have very significant impacts on how things are sorted, but they still *tend* toward density sorting. Nothing replicates the kinds of effects that are being claimed within creation science.

I will have to verify strata order and get back to you. But the time scale would be weeks or months, the quantity enormous of course, and the agitations relatively infrequent. The major factor would be amount of pressure, which would be gargantuan.

 

This works on very small scales obviously, but in full liquifaction, this "bottleneck" effect is totally overwhelmed. If you're trying to use any liquifaction strong enough to produce the claimed effects, this small scale bottlenecking would be completely insignificant.

 

Again, this is a table top experiment. I strongly suggest you try it yourself!

Overwhelmed by what?

 

Here the aero-dynamical properties would produce completely different sorting than what we find. Once the connective tissue was dissolved, according to this theory more aerodynamic bones would float up higher than the less aerodynamic bones. This of course is not what we see, and again, table top experiments prove otherwise....

The bodies would not be decayed in that amount of time. They would be battered, crushed, and contorted, but mostly unfragmented, which is exactly what we see.

 

Liquifaction enough to allow "slipping" would again either show "trails" around the edges due to the slipping (take a look at any wind-tunnel experiment: these work at low-speed in high-viscosity environments identical to high-speed in low-viscosity), or there would be enough liquifaction to cause sorting of the less granular elements that would disrupt the strata. Can be shown experimentally....

Good point, I will have to look into it. Though I'm not picturing continuous travel, but cyclic. If trails should still occur, I can only speculate that maybe they rode the final waves in a water lense. Also will have to look for trails in the sediments, or warbles or something, however eroded by settling and cementation. Any pointers on how to experiment with that?

 

There's Brown's contraption, would that work? He opted for providing pressure from beneath rather than duplicating the compression of water from above. Maybe could use another medium?

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction4.html

[Pyrotex]

The pangea theory is close to the truth. The continents are obviously a fragmented whole. The difference between that and the hydroplate is the additional evidence of the strata, oceanic ridges and trenches, various other characteristics such as underground caverns, plumes/domes, and of course the verity of mechanism... From what I read of Sedgwick, he was claiming the upper minor portions of soil above the strata as proof of a global flood. And his concession was promted by others demonstrating how nature could produce these upper soil characteristics...

You may have misread Sedgwick's antique Edwardian English. He was claiming that all visible strata (and the deposits above them) could NOT be fitted into a global flood theory. Remember, even in the 1800's, they had access to strata far below caverns, acquifers, etc. They already knew about the Grand Canyon.

 

From what I can gather, the reason was that the visible strata proved that they (and the deposits above them) were laid down at widely variant points of time, NOT at one singular time around the globe.

[Southtown]

From what I can gather, the reason was that the visible strata proved that they (and the deposits above them) were laid down at widely variant points of time, NOT at one singular time around the globe.

Hahaha! How is that?

[Southtown]

Pending a swift rebuttal of water lenses (relevant to the planning of a liquefaction experiment) and the verification of Sedgwick's so-called "undeniable" evidence, I continue.

 

Diagrams of strata aren't proving very useful. Sometimes a description of a layer can provide some info, but for the most part, layers are grouped together by date rather than composition, and lines between layers are drawn cartoonishly. Besides, they are just artistic impressions.

 

However in the Mississipian layer in this diagram from ISGS contains limestone grading to siltstone chert. While I can't utilize this vague description as evidence, something did occur to me. Notice that the sandstone, limestone, and shale are deposited throughout the column.

 

http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/servs/pubs/map_series/gen_strat_col_8.5x11.pdf

 

When a water lense forms, it divides sediments. After the first lense, the sedimentary column is divided into two parts, which then cease to interact. Then those two sections are split by the second and third water lenses, and so on.

 

First, this process would ensure that all sediments of one type didn't collect at one place in the column, but would form repeating layers, such as the sandstone, limestone, and shale above. Second, there should be layers caught in an intermediate stage of splitting, such as the grading Mississipian section in the Illinois column.

 

To argue sediment order, however, would require concrete examples. This is just FYI for those trying to picture the process, even if only to argue it. Also, notice that the coal is all in one spot.

 

Then there's photos of strata that deserve discussion:

 

http://www.hi.is/~oi/Folded%20strata%20Carboniferous%20and%20Permian%20strata%20in%20Ingeborgfjellet,%20Van%20Mienfjorden,%20Spitsbergen.JPG (parent page)

 

In this large photo (hope you know how to manipulate), we have layers that divide into groups based on how they flow together. 1) The two, large, bottom sections on either side of the hill curving down toward the middle, 2) the dark, middle section with thin, light-colored layers forming wavy lines, and 3) the top layers which cap the hill. Since these are groupable we can deduce the following.

 

The bottom layers were obviously ruptured or folded downward after it accumulated a number of layers. The middle section, which looks to be spilling out through the rupture, was entirely layerized as well when it began to squish into the concave. The layers on top sag in unison, whereas if they accumulated over time would level out like craters do. It is apparent that these layers were already formed when the rupture (or fold), the spill, and the sag occured as one event. How would cemented layers deform like this unless they were still wet? Additionally, there was erosion (after the layers were deposited) that turned these generally concave layers into a hill.

 

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/FieldImages/BadlandsPaleosol.jpeg (parent page)

 

Again, above we have more hills. Horizontal layers form, rather uniformly, before erosion begins to carve these hills.

 

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/FieldImages/PtigamticFolds.jpeg (same parent)

 

Here is a small example of layers folding after they were formed. Repeated s-curves in this vein mean the surrounding stone was soft when folding occured. If the area was hot enough to bend layers of rock, then why didn't the sediments mix? If the sediments were still wet, they would have bent easily, then dried.

 

More to come, onward.

[lindagarrette]

Creation "science" or ID is silly because it has no predictive value. Geological computer models show with increasing accuracy what occurred in the past and even project how the shape of the earth will be millions of years from now. ID says a change occurred all at once and we should expect everything to remain the same from now on, unless there is a supernatural intervention, such as the "end of times."

[CraigD]

Creation "science" or ID is silly because it has no predictive value.

I agree. Thanks for you astute and concise words.

 

My principle misgiving about ID theory is that, as widely discussed, it’s used almost exclusively to attack theories that do make falsifiable predictions, without supplying alternate predictions. In an effort to be fair-minded, I must consider that there may be some people studying ID theory in a scientific manner, making and testing hypotheses, but it so, their voices seem drown out by the din of people proffering ID as a collection of objections to other theories. This strikes me as unfortunate, because, from my intuitive perspective, nature does seem full or “critical points of control”, where small, subtle processes control large and complex ones, in areas ranging from Cosmology to the surprising stability of the Solar System to Evolutionary Biology to Particle Physics. With its focus on complexity as information, ID (under, I would hope, a less provocative name), as a branch of Chaos Theory could contribute to the understanding of such processes.

 

With proper scientific rigor, “the theory currently known as ID” might provide valuable insights into design by humans, and might even find in a scientifically sound manner the subtle evidence it purports to seek.

[Southtown]

Creation "science" or ID is silly because it has no predictive value.

No one's promoting ID here. :lol: I'm describing the Hydroplate Theory.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html

 

My principle misgiving about ID theory is that, as widely discussed, it’s used almost exclusively to attack theories that do make falsifiable predictions, without supplying alternate predictions.

Even if you were misled to thinking someone before linda brought up ID, your point is sound, as well as hers. Some predictions of the Hydroplate Theory:

1. Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled salt water. (Recent discoveries support this prediction, first made in 1980. Salt water appears to be about 10 miles below the Tibetan Plateau, which is bounded on the south by the largest mountain range on earth.)
2. Salty water will be found within cracks in granite, 5-10 miles below the earth’s surface (where surface water should not be able to penetrate).
3. The crystalline rock under Gibraltar, the Bosporus and Dardanelles, and the Golden Gate bridge will be found to be eroded into a V-shaped notch. (This prediction concerning the Bosporus and Dardanelles, first published in 1995, was confirmed in 1998.)
4. Fracture zones and axial and flank rifts will always be along lines of high magnetic intensity.
5. The magnetic intensity above hydrothermal vents slowly increases because the rock below, fractured since the flood a few thousand years ago, is cooling.
6. A 10-mile-thick granite layer (a hydroplate) will be found a mile or so under the western Pacific floor.
7. Fossils of land animals, not just shallow-water plant fossils, will be found in and near trenches.
8. Precise measurements of the center of the western Pacific floor will show it is rising relative to sea level and the center of the earth, because plates are still shifting.
9. When greater precision is achieved in measuring the inner core’s rotational speed, it will be found to be slowing relative to the rest of the earth.
10. A well-designed blind test will not support McDougall’s age sequences for seven Hawaiian volcanoes.
11. Corings taken anywhere in the bottom of any large lake will not show laminations as thin, parallel, and extensive as the varves of the Green River formation, perhaps the best known of all varve deposits.
12. High concentrations of loess particles will be found in the bottom several hundred feet of most ice cores drilled in Antarctica and Greenland.
13. Muck on Siberian plateaus should have a wide range of thicknesses. The greatest thickness will be in former valleys. Preflood hilltops will have the thinnest layers of muck. Drilling or seismic reflection techniques should confirm this.
14. Rock ice will be found to be salty.
15. Bubbles in rock ice will be found to contain less air and much more carbon dioxide than normally in ice bubbles formed today.
16. Dirt and organic particles in rock ice will closely resemble those in the overlying muck.
17. One should not find marine fossils, layered strata, oil, coal seams, or limestone directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses.
18. Blind radiocarbon dating of different parts of the same mammoth will continue to give radiocarbon ages that differ by more than statistical variations would reasonably permit. Contamination by ground water will be most easily seen if the samples came from widely separated parts of the mammoth’s body with different water-absorbing characteristics.
19. Soil in “erosion” channels on Mars will contain traces of soluble compounds, such as salt from Earth’s preflood subterranean chambers. Soil far from “erosion” channels will not. (This prediction was first published in April 2001. Salt was discovered on Mars in March 2004.)
20. The number of near-parabolic comets passing perihelion each decade is diminishing slightly. This effect will be seen as better telescopes, more searchers, and higher quality data allow adjustments to be made for our increasing ability to see comets.
21. Some large, near-parabolic comets, as they fall toward the center of the solar system for the first time, will have moons. Tidal effects may strip such moons from their comets as they pass the Sun. (A moon may have been found orbiting incoming comet Hale-Bopp.)
22. The mass of about 70 Jupiters is distributed 40–600 AU from the Sun.
23. Because the solar system should be slightly “heavier” than previously thought, some strange comet pairs listed in Table 15 are the same comet seen on successive orbits. More “strange pairs” will be found each decade. Probably the comet sightings of 1785 and 1898 were of the same comet. If so, it will return in about 2012.
24. Excess heavy hydrogen will be found in salty water pockets five or more miles below the Earth’s surface.
25. Spacecraft landing on a comet will find that comets, and therefore bodies bombarded by comets, such as Mars, contain loess, traces of vegetation and bacteria, and about twice the salt concentration of our oceans.
26. The Oort cloud will never be seen, because it does not exist.
27. No incoming comet will ever be seen on a distinctly hyperbolic orbit, because comets originated from Earth, not outside the solar system.
28. Asteroids are rock piles, often with ice acting as a weak “glue” deep inside. Large rocks that began the capture process are nearer the centers of asteroids. Comets, which are primarily ice, have rocks in their cores.
29. Rocks in asteroids are typical of the Earth’s crust. Expensive efforts to mine asteroids to recover strategic or precious metals will be a waste of money.
30. As has been discovered on the Moon and apparently on Mercury, frost will be found within asteroids and in permanently shadowed craters on Mars. All of this frost will be rich in heavy hydrogen.
31. Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction, first published in the 6th Edition (1995), p. 157, has now been confirmed. (source)

For those who may be wondering about the reasons for these predictions, there's no way around reading the book (above link). I simply haven't the time to reprint it here. :lol:

[LOC]

LOC, thanks for asking me to butt out.

I did?B)

[LOC]

Excellent questions. I hope the above explanation (and links) shed some light on what I'm trying to say.Crossbeds are strata that were compressed horizontally when the ruptured crust fragments contracted and formed continents.

http://www.creationscience.com/Liquefaction7.html

http://www.creationscience.com/HydroplateOverview6.html

You are suggesting crossbeds are the result of deformation? ALL crossbeds? Even the <2 inch crossbeds found in 2000 feet of undeformed calcareous shale? What about the crossbeds we see forming today?

 

Can you provide any experimental evidence to support this declaration? Links to Brown's theory are not evidence, they are at this point unsupported stories.

 

 

 

I think I explained the channels previously. Consider the Grand Canyon. If it were cut by a gigantic lake breaching its shore line, the water would carve the canyon with peak pressure. But trailing pressure would leave rocks, boulders, and a few topmost sedimentary layers. Also, the initial receding floodwater would cut its own canyons in the crust and lower strata, while remaining water would deposit more strata. Boulders and rocks would no doubt be deposited first, and currents would carry them into any trenches in the lower sediments.

I'm not referring to surface channels but to the buried channels we see throughout the entire geologic column. Buried structures that look exactly like dendritic river systems and buried canyons.

 

Also, how would a lake breach form the meandering river pattern present in the Grand Canyon? Meanders require very specific flow regimes.

 

 

The explanation is simple for the sorting by morphology as well if you recall the liquefaction description: aerodynamics, weight, etc. But also add to that their natural habitats. Land-dwelling creatures, aquatic creatures, and aeronautic creatures would all experience the situation differently.

How does liquefaction sort ammonite fossils based on morphology?

 

How can you go through 500 feet of shale core and find baby and adult ammonites of the same morphology occurring together and only in certain intervals?

 

For example, the bottom 100 feet of the core contains various sized (i.e., aged) type 1 ammonites, the next 210 foot interval contains various sized type 2 ammonites and no type 1 ammonites, and the upper 190 feet of core contains only type 3 ammonites, also of different sizes/maturities.

 

It's all black shale (in other words, the same habitat), but it's also: locally sandy, locally calcareus, locally lacking carbonate, locally carbon-rich, locally carbon-poor, locally rich or poor in gypsum, 10-inch concretions in 3 horizons.

 

Those are all things liquefaction needs to explain as well, and that's a pitiful small list of what Brown's theory needs to explain.

 

 

There is a difference between this and Buffy's imagery, though. The organisms did not fall through the strata, they were merely lifted more slowly during the low pressure phase, if they were low-drag. Which way organisms drifted would depend on their weight-to-drag ratio relative to the surrounding sediments, not just weight or density alone. It would stand to reason that most organisms did make it to the top where they quickly decayed before fossilization.

So wouldn't smaller ammonites end up in different places than larger ammonites?

 

 

 

Additionally, the organisms were lubricated with water, just as the particles were, and slipped past each other quite easily without deforming the strata, while being slightly suspended during the low pressure phase. I think most of them appear to be inbetween layers, but I'm not sure. The high pressure phase however, probably impeded all movement.

During the compaction/high-pressure stage, where did the water go? Where are all these escape structures that the water must have formed after being squeezed out of the sediment?

 

 

 

Again, have you any experimental evidence that shows how limestone, shale, sand, chert, diatomite, etc. can all be formed by liquefaction? What about the thousands of feet of basalt flows interlayered with limestone and gravel deposits? How does water-saturated sediment result in thousands of square kilometers of 1000 feet thick basalt?

 

Edited for grammar, clarity.