Humans Caused Extinction of Australia’s Prehistoric Giant Animals

[shunyadragon]

Citing a few articles from http://creation.com (use their search for exact references):



1.692 % now = c. 3.4+% at Flood.



55700 years = 0.119 % now = 0.24+% at Flood.



33570 BP = 1.723% now = 3.4+% back then.
41010 BP = 0.701 % now = 1.4+% back then.



22000 BP = 6.986% now = 15% back then if from Flood = perhaps later?
39000 BP = 0.894% now = 2% if from Flood.

I also need to give credits to:

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/.../carbdate.html

Carbon dating is not relevant to any of the above, which represent the mostly the misuse or misinterpretation of the Carbon dating method.

[shunyadragon]

Have you seen the instant stratification experiments by the French Colleague of yours?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBv-4jrzmNw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7SGB_uMRNU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG6tfolc1i4

I wanted to add that these experiments are high school and freshman college demonstrations juxtaposition deposition in water and wind blown sand deposits, for more then fifty years at least. No actual new meaningful research here.

Note the water in these experiments is very clear indicating only different sizes of sand, and no clay and silt. Flood waters would be very at least muddy and contain a wide range of sediment sizes. Actually catastrophic flooding would a jumble of everything wih little or no order or stratification like ome of the deposits of regional flooding observed when the glaciers of the Ice Age melted,

[rogue06]

I wanted to add that these experiments are high school and freshman college demonstrations juxtaposition deposition in water and wind blown sand deposits, for more then fifty years at least. No actual new meaningful research here.

Note the water in these experiments is very clear indicating only different sizes of sand, and no clay and silt. Flood waters would be very at least muddy and contain a wide range of sediment sizes. Actually catastrophic flooding would a jumble of everything wih little or no order or stratification like ome of the deposits of regional flooding observed when the glaciers of the Ice Age melted,

I think Stoke's Law would still come into play with larger particles settling faster than smaller ones. A global flood ought to result in a worldwide band with heavier sediments at the bottom and lighter sediments on top.

[shunyadragon]

I think Stoke's Law would still come into play with larger particles settling faster than smaller ones. A global flood ought to result in a worldwide band with heavier sediments at the bottom and lighter sediments on top.

Stoke's Law is what the references hansgeorge neglected involving silt and clay deposition as opposed to just sand in their experiments.

This probably true for after the flood retreated, but the flood itself would be catastrophic like the post Ice Age regional floods leaving regions devastated, and the initial deposit would truly chaotic and huge.

[hansgeorg]

All materials regardless of size and density respond to the same physics of deposition.

Agreed.

The influence of gravity and the velocity of the water determine the different settling rates of different size and density of the particles.

That is at least part of the deal.

I think the instant varving of the Guy Berthault experiments suggests some other component top the physics. Like implications about instant varving, implications about saturation forcing deposit.

This is the reason sandstone deposits do not contain silt nor clay. The smallest, and less dense clay requires still waters to settle out at much slower rate over time, and that is why varved clay deposits only form in lakes and inland waters that are relatively calm.

Except under the kind of conditions suggested by the Guy Berthault experiment.

Not claiming he repeated these on clay or silt.

If the water has any velocity at all the clay will stay in suspension.

Unless the saturation is too great. Unless great velocity forces fine grains to do shift work with courser grains in that instant varving.

As Wikipedia explains:

Source: Loess

Loess is an aeolian sediment formed by the accumulation of wind-blown silt, typically in the 20–50 micrometer size range, twenty percent or less clay and the balance equal parts sand and silt.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Loess and paleosols require pretty dry conditions to form and accumulate which is not what one would find during a global flood.

Kudos for citing wikipedia. Less kudos for relying on it so totally.

As I stated when jpholding was dissing wiki too much, wikipedia is a great source for consensus level of knowledge on each subject in any given language. And in English, obviously, Flood geology is not consensus. Hence, wiki is not a good source if you want to know how a Flood Geologist approaches things.

I have seen speculations over at CMI that certain grounds were part time lifted up above waves and then drowned again, which would be one way of accounting for even strictly aeolian formation. But, as said, there is (on my non-specialist view) a saturation at which even 20-50 micrometer sized particles will precipitate even if involved in high speed water.

[hansgeorg]

A global flood ought to result in a worldwide band with heavier sediments at the bottom and lighter sediments on top.

Look up the experiment of Guy Berthault before invoking it next time, I gave you videos.

Stoke's law would probably apply in waters much calmer than the ones we consider here.

[hansgeorg]

Carbon dating is not relevant to any of the above, which represent the mostly the misuse or misinterpretation of the Carbon dating method.

Carbon dating is on the contrary highly relevant.

If the things had been dated by other methods, they would have been dating to millions of years, not just myriads.

You can say "carbon dating is misisued" on such occasions, but you can't deny that with that amount of C14 remaining and taking C14 method on its usual terms, such are the ages you get and not those famous millions of years.

[rogue06]

Stoke's Law is what the references hansgeorge neglected involving silt and clay deposition as opposed to just sand in their experiments.

This probably true for after the flood retreated, but the flood itself would be catastrophic like the post Ice Age regional floods leaving regions devastated, and the initial deposit would truly chaotic and huge.

It would also take place during the months that the water was covering the planet. First boulders and then gravel would settle followed in order by sand, silt and then clay particles. Finally there would be biogenic precipitates such as limestone, and chemical precipitates such as salt and gypsum.

[rogue06]

Look up the experiment of Guy Berthault before invoking it next time, I gave you videos.

Stoke's law would probably apply in waters much calmer than the ones we consider here.

You need calm waters for the flood to be responsible for limestone and chalk layers.

[rogue06]

Kudos for citing wikipedia. Less kudos for relying on it so totally.

As I stated when jpholding was dissing wiki too much, wikipedia is a great source for consensus level of knowledge on each subject in any given language. And in English, obviously, Flood geology is not consensus.

Actually it is consensus knowledge with only a tiny fraction of a fraction of geologists disagreeing based more upon religious reasons than scientific ones.

[shunyadragon]

Look up the experiment of Guy Berthault before invoking it next time, I gave you videos.

Stoke's law would probably apply in waters much calmer than the ones we consider here.

I looked at Guy Berthault's experiments and they only apply to juxtaposition deposition of sands within sandstone deposits and formations. If you have any references that show experiments using silt and clay please provide them. There is absolutely no objective evidence that juxtaposition deposition shown in the experiments apply to clays.

Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

I think the instant varving of the Guy Berthault experiments suggests some other component top the physics. Like implications about instant varving, implications about saturation forcing deposit.

Nothing in Berthault's experiments deals with clay varving nor other natural clay deposits. They do not suggest anything of the sort. He only used sand in his experiments.

You need to explain 'saturation forcing deposit (?), because there is no such thing in natural deposits as shown in Berthault's experiments.

Except under the kind of conditions suggested by the Guy Berthault experiment.

Not claiming he repeated these on clay or silt.

That is the problem with Berthault's experiment with sands. They only apply to juxtaposition deposition within sandstone formations.

Kudos for citing wikipedia. Less kudos for relying on it so totally.

As I stated when jpholding was dissing wiki too much, wikipedia is a great source for consensus level of knowledge on each subject in any given language. And in English, obviously, Flood geology is not consensus. Hence, wiki is not a good source if you want to know how a Flood Geologist approaches things.

Source: http://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/loess/

In some parts of the world, windblown dust and silt blanket the land. This layer of fine, mineral-rich material is called loess.

Loess is mostly created by wind, but can also be formed by glaciers. When glaciers grind rocks to a fine powder, loess can form. Streams carry the powder to the end of the glacier. This sediment becomes loess.

Loess ranges in thickness from a few centimeters to more than 91 meters (300 feet). Unlike other soils, loess is pale and loosely packed. It crumbles easily; in fact, the word “loess” comes from the German word for “loose.” Loess is soft enough to carve, but strong enough to stand as sturdy walls. In parts of China, residents build cave-like dwellings in thick loess cliffs.

© Copyright Original Source

Geologic formations of silt size particles are called siltstone.

I have seen speculations over at CMI that certain grounds were part time lifted up above waves and then drowned again, which would be one way of accounting for even strictly aeolian formation. But, as said, there is (on my non-specialist view) a saturation at which even 20-50 micrometer sized particles will precipitate even if involved in high speed water.

Speculation will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds for $2.00 unless you are over 60. The clear answer from science based on Stoke's Law is no, silt and clay size particles do not behave the same as sand in the experiments cited. Clay size particles 0.1 - 50 microns do not precipitate in high or even moderate speed waters, which is the reason that sandstone, sand dunes, and beaches contain only sand like in Berthault's high school experiments.

[Sparko]

Where does a 1,000 pound Kangaroo sit?

[shunyadragon]

Look up the experiment of Guy Berthault before invoking it next time, I gave you videos.

Stoke's law would probably apply in waters much calmer than the ones we consider here.

The reality of the facts of sediment deposits today and all know geologic history of all known formations is that gravel deposits form conglomerates, sandstone and deposits of sand, like beaches and dunes, contain only sand, loess and siltstone contains only silt size particles, and clay deposits, shales and varved clays contain or only clay, and form from discretely uniform thin strata of clay sized particles. Stoke's Law rules in the history of deposition and rock formation.

Absolutely no evidence of a Genesis flood.

[hansgeorg]

I looked at Guy Berthault's experiments and they only apply to juxtaposition deposition of sands within sandstone deposits and formations. If you have any references that show experiments using silt and clay please provide them. There is absolutely no objective evidence that juxtaposition deposition shown in the experiments apply to clays.

The reason for the result was diverse thickness or mass of particles.

Nothing in Berthault's experiments deals with clay varving nor other natural clay deposits. They do not suggest anything of the sort. He only used sand in his experiments.

Nevertheless, one can extrapolate from what he used to what he didn't, by likeness of causes, namely diffused particles in rapid flows of water having diverse thickness or mass.

You need to explain 'saturation forcing deposit (?), because there is no such thing in natural deposits as shown in Berthault's experiments.

Where do they show that just any degree of saturation can avoid precipitation due to small size of particles?

Geologic formations of silt size particles are called siltstone.

OK ...

Speculation will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds for $2.00 unless you are over 60.

Glad you seem to be over 60, so I won't have to buy you a cup of coffee, I don't have $2.00.

The clear answer from science based on Stoke's Law is no, silt and clay size particles do not behave the same as sand in the experiments cited. Clay size particles 0.1 - 50 microns do not precipitate in high or even moderate speed waters,

That is speculation, unless you repeat the experiments with higher and higher saturations.

Ideally mixing different grain sizes, so as to repeat the Berthault experiment's condition.

which is the reason that sandstone, sand dunes, and beaches contain only sand like in Berthault's high school experiments.

Sand dunes are usually formed very recently, under conditions where concentration of silt or clay particles cannot have had concentrations comparable to Flood.