Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

1,000,000 years worth of loess deposits.

Expand Messages
  • Richard Tardibuono
    How could the flood possibly cause this? http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm I can t figure out any possible rationalization for this data. That s 1
    Message 1 of 23 , Jul 1 6:42 PM
      How could the flood possibly cause this?

      http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm

      I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.

      That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area in Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this, does anyone else have any idea?

      Thanks.


      ---------------------------------
      Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Oliver Elphick
      ... He is assuming that the deposits all come from the same source as the dust that he sees falling now. More likely the dust he now sees comes from those
      Message 2 of 23 , Jul 3 12:13 AM
        On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 21:42 -0400, Richard Tardibuono wrote:
        > How could the flood possibly cause this?
        >
        > http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm
        >
        > I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.
        >
        > That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area in
        > Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per
        > year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it
        > would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to
        > accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this, does
        > anyone else have any idea?

        He is assuming that the deposits all come from the same source as the
        dust that he sees falling now. More likely the dust he now sees comes
        from those deposits.

        --
        Oliver Elphick olly@...
        Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
        GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
        ========================================
        Do you want to know God? http://www.lfix.co.uk/knowing_god.html
      • Dr. Robert A. Herrmann
        As I ve stated many times, that my Flood model includes all such anomalies, assuming they are fact. See my website.In particular, my third belief statement,
        Message 3 of 23 , Jul 3 5:16 AM
          As I've stated many times, that my Flood model includes all such anomalies, assuming they are fact. See my website.In particular, my third belief statement, http://www.serve.com/herrmann/belief3.htm

          Dr. Bob

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Richard Tardibuono
          To: Creation Talk
          Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 9:42 PM
          Subject: [CreationTalk] 1,000,000 years worth of loess deposits.


          How could the flood possibly cause this?

          http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm

          I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.

          That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area in Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this, does anyone else have any idea?

          Thanks.

          ---------------------------------
          Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • howard motz
          Very funny. The head line reads 1,000,000 years. The very next line looses 400,000 years. They assume that this dust is being blown in from somewhere? Maybe it
          Message 4 of 23 , Jul 3 6:38 AM
            Very funny. The head line reads 1,000,000 years. The very next line looses 400,000 years. They assume that this dust is being blown in from somewhere? Maybe it is the same dust being recirculated! Washed away to the river by rain. Deposited on the banks or delta. Then blown back by the winds? Anyway no one asserts that Beijing is 1 million years old. Not even 10,000 years old. Yet the last picture shows 20 or 30 feet of the dust covering an ancient building. Probably less then 2,000 years old!

            Richard Tardibuono <richbond75@...> wrote: How could the flood possibly cause this?

            http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm

            I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.

            That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area in Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this, does anyone else have any idea?

            Thanks.

            ---------------------------------
            Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






            ---------------------------------
            Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
            Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • howiemotz
            Beijing has two rivers flowing through it. These rivers have been tamed in recent history. But in times past it would have been flooded regularly. With feet of
            Message 5 of 23 , Jul 3 6:59 AM
              Beijing has two rivers flowing through it. These rivers have been
              tamed in recent history. But in times past it would have been flooded
              regularly. With feet of your sediment being laid down in a single season.
              This whole article is nothing more the a poor attempt to undermine
              YEC. Shows how desperate old earthers really are! Doesn't it?


              --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, Richard Tardibuono
              <richbond75@...> wrote:
              >
              > How could the flood possibly cause this?
              >
              > http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm
              >
              > I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.
              >
              > That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area
              in Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per
              year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it
              would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to
              accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this, does
              anyone else have any idea?
              >
              > Thanks.
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
              email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Jeremy Dasen
              Mr. Morton doesn t tell us if he s over 1,000,000 years old to have observed this supposed constant rate of deposition. Anyone who has ever been around
              Message 6 of 23 , Jul 3 7:22 AM
                Mr. Morton doesn't tell us if he's over 1,000,000 years old to have observed this supposed constant rate of deposition. Anyone who has ever been around dust/rain/snow that accumulates knows that it varies wildly from year to year, and even day to day. There is no possible way he (or anyone) can know the past deposition rates for dust in this area.. After the flood, there would have been some pretty wild weather patterns for quite some time. Since this loess (they "think" it's loess, and I have no reason to believe they're wrong) is said to come from glacially ground rock, it only makes sense that there would be larger amounts of deposits during the time after the ice age (shortly post-flood). I think the greatly varied weather patterns post flood would easily account for a greater deposition rate (more dust storms, probably) in the past. I think we're just being stupid if we think we can say with any certainty what the weather, deposition rates, decay rates, etc. were
                in the unobservable past. This is true for creationists as well as for evolutionists. We can observe the present and offer our best guesses about unobservable past events, but all it will ever be is a guess. Of course we have the recorded events of the past in the biblical account around which we can frame our guesses about the past, but evolutionists have only current observations and wild extrapolations.

                I don't worry about Mr. Morton's shot-in-the-dark guessing about the dust around Beijing.

                God Bless,

                Jeremy Dasen
                <}}><


                ----- Original Message ----
                From: Richard Tardibuono <richbond75@...>
                To: Creation Talk <creationtalk@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2007 8:42:35 PM
                Subject: [CreationTalk] 1,000,000 years worth of loess deposits.

                How could the flood possibly cause this?

                http://home. entouch.net/ dmd/beijingsoil. htm

                I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.

                That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area in Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this, does anyone else have any idea?

                Thanks.

                ------------ --------- --------- ---
                Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Richard Tardibuono
                howard motz wrote: Anyway no one asserts that Beijing is 1 million years old. Not even 10,000 years old.
                Message 7 of 23 , Jul 3 2:16 PM
                  howard motz <howiemotz@...> wrote: Anyway no one asserts that Beijing is 1 million years old. Not even 10,000 years old.



                  But couldn't it still be argued that this monument was built millions of years ago (primitive human tribes?) where Beijing now resides. I guess that is crazy, though

                  http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingloessapr8.jpg





                  ---------------------------------
                  All new Yahoo! Mail -
                  ---------------------------------
                  Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Charles Creager Jr
                  The key is that as is typical of uniformitarian thinking Morton is assuming a constant rate of disposition. In this case such an assumption is totally
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jul 3 7:02 PM
                    The key is that as is typical of uniformitarian thinking Morton is assuming
                    a constant rate of disposition. In this case such an assumption is totally
                    unreasonable. It would not take unrealistic disposition rates to account for
                    this. The entire 60 feet of dust could have accumulated since the time of
                    the Flood (about 4300 years) with an average rate of just 4.2 mm / year.
                    Also at 1.7 cm /year it could have accumulated in only 1,068 years. So, a
                    few good sand storms could have bee responsible for most of it. All that it
                    is necessary for Morton's calculations to be totally bogus is for the
                    current rate to be unusually slow, and you don't even need the Flood for
                    that to be likely. However the Flood would have produced whether patterns
                    that probably would have produced the needed sand storms, so Flood geology
                    predicts significantly faster disposition in past and his calculation are
                    not valid in Flood geology, and thus can not be used against it.



                    With regards to Howard's ancient buildings, not only would the dust on top
                    of it have had to accumulate since they were built, but unless they were
                    built under ground, the entire 60 feet would have to have accumulated in
                    that time. It is interesting that Morton says nothing about this structure,
                    is he hoping that it won't be noticed?



                    ---- Charles Creager Jr.



                    _____

                    howard motz



                    Very funny. The head line reads 1,000,000 years. The very next line looses
                    400,000 years. They assume that this dust is being blown in from somewhere?
                    Maybe it is the same dust being recirculated! Washed away to the river by
                    rain. Deposited on the banks or delta. Then blown back by the winds? Anyway
                    no one asserts that Beijing is 1 million years old. Not even 10,000 years
                    old. Yet the last picture shows 20 or 30 feet of the dust covering an
                    ancient building. Probably less then 2,000 years old!

                    Richard Tardibuono <richbond75@yahoo. <mailto:richbond75%40yahoo.ca> ca>
                    wrote: How could the flood possibly cause this?

                    http://home. <http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm>
                    entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm

                    I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.

                    That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area in
                    Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per year(the
                    experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it would have to take
                    more than 1 million years for the loess to accumulate. I don't think the
                    noachian deluge could explain this, does anyone else have any idea?

                    Thanks.

                    ---------------------------------
                    Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
                    boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    ---------------------------------
                    Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who
                    knows.
                    Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Alan-
                    These two guys agree, at a cursory glance, that the stuff is loess. Isaac Asimov once said, IIRC, that he expected the Earth to have lots more meteor dust
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jul 4 9:05 AM
                      These two guys agree, at a cursory glance, that the stuff is loess.

                      Isaac Asimov once said, IIRC, that he expected the Earth to have lots
                      more meteor dust accumulation than it does, and at least at that time,
                      again IIRC, did not have an explanation. In that articled he speculated
                      about the deep dust layer on the moon that the astronauts might encounter

                      Alan
                    • Temlakos
                      I recall reading a sci-fi short story about a transportation disaster on the moon. The author speculated that the dust layer would be so deep that the right
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jul 4 11:07 AM
                        I recall reading a sci-fi short story about a transportation disaster on
                        the moon. The author speculated that the dust layer would be so deep
                        that the right kind of ship could almost swim in it. So he invented a
                        passenger "liner" designed to scoot through the dust like a boat on
                        water on earth. The chief plot-changing disaster was that the ship
                        "capsized" and buried itself in the dust.

                        I also recall hearing repeatedly that NASA/Project Apollo mission
                        planners were worried about how much dust they'd find on the moon.
                        That's why the Apollo Lunar Module (LM) had those extra-wide footpads,
                        plus its six-foot-long contact feelers that dangled from the legs. Of
                        course, after Apollo 11 touched down and the dust turned out to be
                        hardly a worry at all, someone decided that the dust didn't accumulate
                        quite so fast. I'll let others more familiar with the issues than
                        myself, comment on that finding.

                        Temlakos

                        Alan- wrote:
                        > These two guys agree, at a cursory glance, that the stuff is loess.
                        >
                        > Isaac Asimov once said, IIRC, that he expected the Earth to have lots
                        > more meteor dust accumulation than it does, and at least at that time,
                        > again IIRC, did not have an explanation. In that articled he speculated
                        > about the deep dust layer on the moon that the astronauts might encounter
                        >
                        > Alan
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ============================================
                        > CreationTalk email listserv
                        > Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
                        > CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
                        > ============================================
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Richard Tardibuono
                        ... Although, if we can t trust any decay rate, how can we trust Humphreys 6000 +/- 2000 year old helium diffusion date? Thanks.
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jul 4 1:15 PM
                          --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Dasen <jem_dasen@...> wrote:
                          >I think we're
                          >just being stupid if we think we can say with any certainty what the
                          >weather,
                          >deposition rates, decay rates, etc. were constant

                          Although, if we can't trust any decay rate, how can we trust
                          Humphreys' 6000 +/- 2000 year old helium diffusion date?

                          Thanks.
                        • Charles Creager Jr
                          While that is possible it would not be acceptable to evolutionists or even most other old Earthers. The best that should have been around was Homo erectus and
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jul 4 3:19 PM
                            While that is possible it would not be acceptable to evolutionists or even
                            most other old Earthers. The best that should have been around was Homo
                            erectus and they would be considered too primitive to build this.



                            ----Charles Creager Jr.



                            _____

                            From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                            Behalf Of Richard Tardibuono
                            Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:16 PM
                            To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] 1,000,000 years worth of loess deposits.

                            howard motz <howiemotz@yahoo. <mailto:howiemotz%40yahoo.com> com> wrote:
                            Anyway no one asserts that Beijing is 1 million years old. Not even 10,000
                            years old.

                            But couldn't it still be argued that this monument was built millions of
                            years ago (primitive human tribes?) where Beijing now resides. I guess that
                            is crazy, though

                            http://home. <http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingloessapr8.jpg>
                            entouch.net/dmd/beijingloessapr8.jpg
                            _,_._,___



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Jeremy Dasen
                            Is that visible structure an ancient building, or is it simply a newer, existing foundational structure? I doubt that they would have poured that ~20 base
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jul 5 7:08 AM
                              Is that visible structure an ancient building, or is it simply a newer, existing foundational structure? I doubt that they would have poured that ~20' base layer (wall) directly over the top of an older building. If the new building's foundation is going 60' down, it wouldn't be too surprising to see other modern bases at that level too. If this is simply another modern foundational structure, Morton would have no reason to mention it.

                              God Bless,

                              Jeremy Dasen
                              <}}><


                              ----- Original Message ----
                              From: Charles Creager Jr <cpcjr@...>
                              To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 9:02:25 PM
                              Subject: RE: [CreationTalk] 1,000,000 years worth of loess deposits.

                              The key is that as is typical of uniformitarian thinking Morton is assuming
                              a constant rate of disposition. In this case such an assumption is totally
                              unreasonable. It would not take unrealistic disposition rates to account for
                              this. The entire 60 feet of dust could have accumulated since the time of
                              the Flood (about 4300 years) with an average rate of just 4.2 mm / year.
                              Also at 1.7 cm /year it could have accumulated in only 1,068 years. So, a
                              few good sand storms could have bee responsible for most of it. All that it
                              is necessary for Morton's calculations to be totally bogus is for the
                              current rate to be unusually slow, and you don't even need the Flood for
                              that to be likely. However the Flood would have produced whether patterns
                              that probably would have produced the needed sand storms, so Flood geology
                              predicts significantly faster disposition in past and his calculation are
                              not valid in Flood geology, and thus can not be used against it.

                              With regards to Howard's ancient buildings, not only would the dust on top
                              of it have had to accumulate since they were built, but unless they were
                              built under ground, the entire 60 feet would have to have accumulated in
                              that time. It is interesting that Morton says nothing about this structure,
                              is he hoping that it won't be noticed?

                              ---- Charles Creager Jr.

                              _____

                              howard motz

                              Very funny. The head line reads 1,000,000 years. The very next line looses
                              400,000 years. They assume that this dust is being blown in from somewhere?
                              Maybe it is the same dust being recirculated! Washed away to the river by
                              rain. Deposited on the banks or delta. Then blown back by the winds? Anyway
                              no one asserts that Beijing is 1 million years old. Not even 10,000 years
                              old. Yet the last picture shows 20 or 30 feet of the dust covering an
                              ancient building. Probably less then 2,000 years old!

                              Richard Tardibuono <richbond75@ yahoo. <mailto:richbond75% 40yahoo.ca> ca>
                              wrote: How could the flood possibly cause this?

                              http://home. <http://home. entouch.net/ dmd/beijingsoil. htm>
                              entouch.net/ dmd/beijingsoil. htm

                              I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.

                              That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area in
                              Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per year(the
                              experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it would have to take
                              more than 1 million years for the loess to accumulate. I don't think the
                              noachian deluge could explain this, does anyone else have any idea?

                              Thanks.

                              ------------ --------- --------- ---
                              Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
                              boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                              ------------ --------- --------- ---
                              Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who
                              knows.
                              Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • WDOUGWILDER@wmconnect.com
                              I believe the loess is best explained as post flood wind deposits during the first years after the flood when trees and ground cover were not yet holding soil
                              Message 14 of 23 , Jul 5 8:39 AM
                                I believe the loess is best explained as post flood wind deposits during the
                                first years after the flood when trees and ground cover were not yet holding
                                soil in place and strong winds were blowing due to temperture changes. </HTML>


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • gshenricus
                                Another possibility that has been tossed out is that the loess deposits are even post ice age (the one caused by & after the Flood). After ice age meltdown
                                Message 15 of 23 , Jul 5 6:50 PM
                                  Another possibility that has been tossed out is that the loess deposits
                                  are even post ice age (the one caused by & after the Flood). After ice
                                  age meltdown there seems to illustrated in the Scriptures (2 Samuel
                                  22:8-9; Psalm 11:6, 107:33-34; Isaiah 24:1-2, 32:10, 34:9-13, 42:15;
                                  Jeremiah 4:23-28, 9:10-12, 14:3-6; 51:36 & 43; Hosea 4:3; Joel 1:16-16-
                                  20; Micah 7:13) and reported in the writings of Plato and Ovid, a time
                                  of great desiccations or drying up of lands that drove people out of
                                  long established centers.

                                  Pr. Gregory Hinners
                                  LCMS pastor, YEC, & unworthy servant

                                  --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, WDOUGWILDER@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I believe the loess is best explained as post flood wind deposits
                                  during the
                                  > first years after the flood when trees and ground cover were not yet
                                  holding
                                  > soil in place and strong winds were blowing due to temperture
                                  changes. </HTML>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                • Charles Creager Jr
                                  Jeremy Dasen ... Except that based one the picture, the 20 base layer seems to be dirt (the same dust they are digging in) not a poured wall. ... If it is a
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Jul 5 7:15 PM
                                    Jeremy Dasen
                                    >Is that visible structure an ancient building, or is it simply a newer,

                                    > existing foundational structure? I doubt that they would have

                                    > poured that ~20' base layer (wall) directly over the top of an older
                                    > building.



                                    Except that based one the picture, the 20' base layer seems to be dirt (the
                                    same dust they are digging in) not a poured wall.



                                    > If the new building's foundation is going 60' down, it wouldn't be
                                    > too surprising to see other modern bases at that level too.



                                    If it is a modern structure, then this is already a disturbed site rendering
                                    the claim invalid. Put another way if this is a modern structure then the
                                    site has already been excavated, filled in and leveled, there is no way of
                                    knowing how much of the 60' is fill from the other structure, or added to
                                    form other locations. In other words it could have been all have been
                                    deposited by dump trucks in a day or two. It is yet another example of the
                                    problem with Uniformitarianism.



                                    > If this is simply another modern foundational structure, Morton
                                    > would have no reason to mention it.



                                    Providing a scientifically valid description of the site would be an
                                    important reason to mention it for the reasons stated above.



                                    ---- Charles Creager Jr.



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Alexander James Azar III
                                    Reminds me of the story of Glacier Girl . It s interesting that the observed evidence for rapid formation of ice layers is also ignored. This can be seen in
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Jul 6 8:03 AM
                                      Reminds me of the story of "Glacier Girl".

                                      "It's interesting that the observed evidence for rapid formation of
                                      ice layers is also ignored. This can be seen in the squadron of P-38
                                      Lightning fighter planes and B–17 Flying Fortress bombers of WWII. On
                                      July 15, 1942 they had to make an emergency landing on a Greenland
                                      ice sheet. The planes were abandoned. Later in 1988 the planes were
                                      found buried under 250 feet of ice!1 Much ice core dating is based on
                                      the assumption that one layer equals one year, but we have seen that
                                      such layers can form rapidly and more than one per year. Here are
                                      some helpful articles: ..."

                                      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/04/reason-four-rock-
                                      strata (at the bottom)

                                      One article I read about the story referred to the planes as
                                      having "sunk into a river of ice". I suppose when the observable data
                                      conflicts with one's theory, one can always rely on metaphors.

                                      Regards, Al.

                                      --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, Richard Tardibuono
                                      <richbond75@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > How could the flood possibly cause this?
                                      >
                                      > http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm
                                      >
                                      > I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.
                                      >
                                      > That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area
                                      in Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per
                                      year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it
                                      would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to
                                      accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this,
                                      does anyone else have any idea?
                                      >
                                      > Thanks.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ---------------------------------
                                      > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
                                      email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                    • Jeremy Auldaney
                                      Yes, In my study of the Post-Flood Pliocene/Pleistocene and misidentified Miocene etc. I have found that there was a lot of rain and flooding during what is
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Jul 12 11:03 AM
                                        Yes, In my study of the Post-Flood Pliocene/Pleistocene and misidentified Miocene etc. I have found that there was a lot of rain and flooding during what is called the Paluvial Period. Large mammals were buried all over the world in gravel, sand, and mud deposits. This was the same time the Colorado River cut through the Colorado Plateau and formed the Grand Canyon. I think the huge deposits of soil in Beijig were post Flood flash floods. It did not take a million years anymore than stelagtites take this long. The spped of many things as well as their size was much greater than today's observations. For more info see: Auldaney.com

                                        Richard Tardibuono <richbond75@...> wrote: How could the flood possibly cause this?

                                        http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm

                                        I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.

                                        That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area in Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this, does anyone else have any idea?

                                        Thanks.

                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Jeremy Auldaney
                                        but not 1,000,000 years. Looked at your site. After cutting through the gobbledygook it appears you are a long age creationist. You would explain the large
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Jul 12 11:43 AM
                                          but not 1,000,000 years. Looked at your site. After cutting through the gobbledygook it appears you are a long age creationist. You would explain the large mass of soil as due to a period of time before Adam and Eve. Similar to the old ages associated with radiometric dating - i.e. they are not dating the age of the rock, but the age of the rocks origins. Well, this is possible, but unlikely because of the Biblical evidence. I used to think this was possible till Dr. Henry Morris straightened me out in his article. He showed that no life could have existed before Adam. Because dinosaurs died, we find their remains. If they died before Adam, then the sin did not bring death into the world, it was already here. Theistic evolution is based on this and it is a compromise with Satan's doctrine as described in the Protocols of the Illuminati, which destroys the basic beliefs of the Bible. Theistic evolution is basically the same as the doctrine of UFO contactees where god is an
                                          extraterrestrial(s) who created Adam from an ancestor of the apes.

                                          I believe the Unaformatarian theory is as false as evolution. The rate of things in the past was much larger and faster than today.
                                          See my site Auldaney.com

                                          "Dr. Robert A. Herrmann" <drrah@...> wrote:
                                          As I've stated many times, that my Flood model includes all such anomalies, assuming they are fact. See my website.In particular, my third belief statement, http://www.serve.com/herrmann/belief3.htm

                                          Dr. Bob

                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: Richard Tardibuono
                                          To: Creation Talk
                                          Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 9:42 PM
                                          Subject: [CreationTalk] 1,000,000 years worth of loess deposits.

                                          How could the flood possibly cause this?

                                          http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm

                                          I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.

                                          That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area in Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this, does anyone else have any idea?

                                          Thanks.

                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Jeremy Auldaney
                                          I agree. Jumping to conclusions just like this is how evolutionists make their mistakes. Interpreting things from an evolutionary viewpoint has caused most of
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Jul 12 11:52 AM
                                            I agree. Jumping to conclusions just like this is how evolutionists make their mistakes. Interpreting things from an evolutionary viewpoint has caused most of the mistakes in science. It was once believed that dinosaurs were slow sluggish creatures eliminated by natural selection (predictions made from evolution), wrong they were fast well designed creatures (predictions made from creation).

                                            howard motz <howiemotz@...> wrote: Very funny. The head line reads 1,000,000 years. The very next line looses 400,000 years. They assume that this dust is being blown in from somewhere? Maybe it is the same dust being recirculated! Washed away to the river by rain. Deposited on the banks or delta. Then blown back by the winds? Anyway no one asserts that Beijing is 1 million years old. Not even 10,000 years old. Yet the last picture shows 20 or 30 feet of the dust covering an ancient building. Probably less then 2,000 years old!

                                            Richard Tardibuono <richbond75@...> wrote: How could the flood possibly cause this?

                                            http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm

                                            I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.

                                            That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area in Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this, does anyone else have any idea?

                                            Thanks.

                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
                                            Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Jeremy Auldaney
                                            Alright brother! Right on! Sorry, but I could not keep quiet. I have observed for many years that everywhere you look you see river valleys that were once
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Jul 12 12:09 PM
                                              Alright brother! Right on! Sorry, but I could not keep quiet. I have observed for many years that everywhere you look you see river valleys that were once filled with water hundreds of feet above where the cities are now after the flood. Near me in Grand Terrace is an example. It has mud, not rock, layed down in layers with layers of strewn granite rocks way up on the bluffs in the ancient river terrace. These are recent post Flood deposits of Pleistocene stratified dirt. The Santa Ana River that flows through San Bernardino, Riverside, through the Santa Ana Mountains (formed of marine Miocene and little Cretaceous sandstone rock) into Orange County where it deposited some of the 30 thousand feet of Early to Late Miocene marine turbidity current deposits in Orange County and Los Angeles Counties canyon or post Flood bay.

                                              Everywhere you see polished rounded rocks, and undulation surfaces where huge rivers once flowed. Soil could be deposited very rapidly.

                                              howiemotz <howiemotz@...> wrote:
                                              Beijing has two rivers flowing through it. These rivers have been
                                              tamed in recent history. But in times past it would have been flooded
                                              regularly. With feet of your sediment being laid down in a single season.
                                              This whole article is nothing more the a poor attempt to undermine
                                              YEC. Shows how desperate old earthers really are! Doesn't it?

                                              --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, Richard Tardibuono
                                              <richbond75@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > How could the flood possibly cause this?
                                              >
                                              > http://home.entouch.net/dmd/beijingsoil.htm
                                              >
                                              > I can't figure out any possible rationalization for this data.
                                              >
                                              > That's 1 million years worth of loess deposits at one specific area
                                              in Beijing. The loess accumulates at a rate of .017 millimeters per
                                              year(the experts say) , 60 feet of it is currently exposed, so it
                                              would have to take more than 1 million years for the loess to
                                              accumulate. I don't think the noachian deluge could explain this, does
                                              anyone else have any idea?
                                              >
                                              > Thanks.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ---------------------------------
                                              > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
                                              email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >






                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • creationrock1
                                              ... In regard to decay rates Extrapolating a data set (from an observed process) to THOUSANDS of years pefore present seems reasonable to me. Extrapolating
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Aug 14, 2007
                                                --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Richard
                                                Tardibuono" <richbond75@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Although, if we can't trust any decay rate, how can we trust
                                                > Humphreys' 6000 +/- 2000 year old helium diffusion date?
                                                >

                                                In regard to decay rates
                                                Extrapolating a data set (from an observed process) to THOUSANDS of
                                                years pefore present seems reasonable to me. Extrapolating observed
                                                decay rates to MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years before present does not
                                                seem to me to be scientifically reasonable.

                                                It's true that an unknown process may have interfered with any
                                                particular decay rate, (speeding it up or slowing it down)but such an
                                                occurance is less likely in a small extrapolation than in a large
                                                extrapolation.

                                                Of course, The Word Of God is our historically accurate account of
                                                the history of the earth.

                                                Hope this helps.
                                                God Bless You All Richly
                                                Creationrock1
                                                Steve Meyer
                                              • Alan-
                                                The current decay rate is just that, the current decay rate. With all the other indicators, and The Bible being true, we can know that something is off
                                                Message 23 of 23 , Aug 15, 2007
                                                  The current decay rate is just that, the current decay rate. With all
                                                  the other indicators, and The Bible being true, we can know that
                                                  something is off somewhere. It would have to be either (1).the
                                                  assumption of constant decay rates, or (2)the assumption of any number
                                                  of the other assumptions necessary for their dates, or (3)maybe even
                                                  conditions that they recognize could affect the decay rates but claim
                                                  those conditions don't hold.

                                                  Just like carbon dating, there's a list of conditions that are required
                                                  for a perfectly reliable date. One book by a darwinian "evolutionist",
                                                  for example, who had ideas that even Michael Schermer would reject (like
                                                  reincarnation), gave a long list of carbon dating results that were
                                                  obviously ridiculous. One of them was a scarf belonging to the
                                                  mother-in-law of the directory of the lab itself, and the result told
                                                  them it was a FUTURE date!

                                                  Polonium halos were one of the earliest evidences, IIRC, that there was
                                                  a really, really, REALLY quick Creation event.

                                                  --Alan



                                                  > > Although, if we can't trust any decay rate, how can we trust
                                                  > > Humphreys' 6000 +/- 2000 year old helium diffusion date?
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > In regard to decay rates
                                                  > Extrapolating a data set (from an observed process) to THOUSANDS of
                                                  > years pefore present seems reasonable to me. Extrapolating observed
                                                  > decay rates to MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years before present does not
                                                  > seem to me to be scientifically reasonable.
                                                  >
                                                  > It's true that an unknown process may have interfered with any
                                                  > particular decay rate, (speeding it up or slowing it down)but such an
                                                  > occurance is less likely in a small extrapolation than in a large
                                                  > extrapolation.
                                                  >
                                                  > Of course, The Word Of God is our historically accurate account of
                                                  > the history of the earth.
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.