This is from my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mercury.htm

"The fish is being served tonight with a delicate creamy mercury sauce," the old woman said to the grizzled and wizened old man sitting at the rough-hewn table in the darkened room. "The boys caught this themselves today right out of the sea!" "Humpf," said the old man with long white locks as he took a breath from his oxygen bottle. He stared at the blue fringed plate with a heaping portion of something buried by a silvery-white sauce. He looked up at his wife. She wore an old camel's hair dress with her long, long hair properly pulled up into a tight but rather large bun. She looked beautiful to the old man, even though she was wearing a gas mask to protect her from the sulfuric acid atmosphere created by the flood. That mask added a certain sexiness that he hadn't noticed in her in the past 300 years. "Do I have to eat it?" he whispered in her ear as six proud and beaming eyes looked at them from the other end of the table. The eyes floated above their broadly smiling faces (covered by their own gas masks) "Yes," she said, "if you don't eat it you will hurt the boys' feelings. They will be crushed. It is there present to you in honor of your achievement. The old-man's eyes sank down to look again upon the silvery white slop covering what appeared to be a deformed fish. A couple of fleshy sores and tumors were now appearing on the fish as the silvery sauce drained off the fish and into the plate. "You know, either the fish just aren't as good as they used to be before this Flood or you are beginning to cook like your mother used to." he muttered. "Shush, old man." she said, "If you hadn't gone on talking to that diety He might not have brought this flood and you wouldn't have to eat this stuff. This flood of yours has made the oceans acidic, mercurious and foul. It is all your fault! Now, shut up and eat your dinner with no more comments about Mama, God rest her soul!"

The point of the above vignette is to illustrate the quality of life in a global flood. This is another in the series on the poisons put out by the global flood. This one will attack the problem a bit differently. It will consider the amount of mercury (element symbol Hg) which must have been released by the erosion of the pre-flood igneous type of rock which was then made into sedimentary rock containing fossils. The YEC paradigm requires that there be very little sedimentary rock prior to the flood. This is because none would have been made at creation (it would be a deception to make rocks appear sedimentary which were in fact not sedimentary). Thus we can calculate how much igneous rock must have been eroded to form the presently observed sedimentary rocks. The total of sedimentary rocks can be calculated as 630 x 10^6 km^3.(see R. Morton [this is me] "Prolegomena to the Study of the Sediments," CRSQ, Dec. 1980, p. 162-167) All of this material must have come from igneous rock.

Given that igneous rocks are around 3.3 g/cc (3300 kg/m^3) and sedimentary rocks are around 2.5 g/cc we can correct for this and we find a .75 reduction factor to put the sedimentary rocks back to igneous. Thus 477 x 10^6 km^3 or 4.77 x 10^17 cubic meters of igneous rocks must have been eroded.

An earlier version of this note was criticized for not making explicit an assumption. The assumption is this. Within the YEC model, the prediluvial rock, which mostly would have been granite and basalt, must have been mechanically crushed, and then rapidly altered chemically to separate the feldspar and quartz fractions. Only in this way can the vast quantities of sand and shale seen in the sedimentary rocks be explained. For God to have created the vast quantities of sand and shale on the primeval earth would be a case of God deceptively creating the appearance of age when no such appearance would be needed. On the primeval earth, only a thin layer of soil would be required, not 40-60,000 feet of it. By the process of mechanical crushing and rapid chemical weathering, much of the mercury contained in the rock would have been released. This is consistent with what is known to occur in the weathering of basalts in which 90% of the mercury in the basalts is released to the environment in about a century.

"If Kilauea lava typically cools with about 1,000 [micro]g/kg of mercury and proceeds to release 90 percent, then this still constitutes only a minor source of the element. The 1840 eruption produced about 400 x 10^6 m^3 of lava weighing perhaps 16 x 10^9 kg. Thus this lava contained a total of 16 x 10^6 g (16 tons) of mercury, of which about 14 tons was released in about a century. In contrast, Halemaumau yields 260 tons annually when it is not erupting." ~B. Z. Siegel and S. M. Siegel, 1987, "Hawaiian Volcanoes and the Biogeology of Mercury," in R.W. Decker et al, ed. Volcanism in Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1350, V. 1., p. 827-839, p. 833 What is the mercury content of the crust of the earth? .1 ppm (p. D15, Table 20, Parker, R.L., 1967, Composition of the Earth's Crust, in Fleischer, Michael, ed., Data of Geochemistry, Sixth Edition: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 440-D) Using the very conservative value of .1 parts per million (ppm) we find that the flood would have ground up and released

.0000001 * 4.77 x 10^17 cubic meters x 3300 kg/m^3 x .9= 1.4 x 10^14 kg or 1.4 x 10^17 g or 1.4 x 10^23 micrograms. I place this in all 3 units because of the need below.

All of this would have been released into the oceans for the fish to ingest. The volume of the ocean is 1.4 x 10^21 liters. So the amount of mercury in a liter is:

1.41 x 10^23 micrograms/1.4 x 10^21 liters = 100 micrograms per liter of water.

How bad is it? Consider this:

"Typically, plant-cell damage takes place with aqueous solutions containing as little as 10 [micro]g/L of Hg ion." ~B. Z. Siegel and S. M. Siegel, 1987, "Hawaiian Volcanoes and the Biogeology of Mercury," in R.W. Decker et al, ed. Volcanism in Hawaii, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1350, V. 1., p. 827-839, p. 830

An expert might question the relevance of this fact to the flood since the above refers to plants growing in mercury-rich ground water. Since plants were not taken on the ark, they must have survived by floating on the surface of the flood waters. And many young-earth creationists have suggested that such vegetable mats were responsible for the coal bed formation. Thus, the damage which mercury laden waters would cause to these floating plants is something that must be addressed by global flood advocates.

The EPA does not allow more than 2.4 micrograms/liter, which is the EPA's Critical Maximum Concentration for fresh water discharge from an industrial site. This was set up to protect aquatic life from deleterious effects from mercury. (John E. Gray and Richard F. Sanzolone, "Environmental Studies of Mineral Deposits in Alaska," U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2156, (Washington: U. S. Gov. Printing Office, 1996), p. 5

How about for animal ingestion? This was found on the internet:

"The EPA has set a limit of 2 parts of mercury per billion parts of drinking water (2 ppb= 2 micrograms/liter). The EPA requires that discharges or spills of 1 pound or more of mercury be reported." http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/tfacts46.html

For those who don't know, 100 micrograms per liter is 50 times more than the EPA would allow for an anthropogenic releas. I guess the EPA would initiate regulatory action against Noah's flood for polluting the oceans.

In order to avoid a creationist objection that the mercury might escape to the atmosphere, I would point out that rainfall effectively removes mercury. And given that the Flood is envisioned as a major rainfall event, mercury would probably not pollute the atmosphere. An experiment that monitored mercury in the atmosphere over the Ord mine in Arizona showed that after a rainfall, the atmospheric mercury content was reduced to zero. (J. H. McCarthy, Jr., J. L. Meuschke, W. H. Ficklin and R. E. Learned, "Mercury in the Atmosphere, "Mercury in the Environment, U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 713, (Washington: U. S. Gov. Printing Office, 1970), p 38)

"Experiments using nanogram amounts (1/1000 of a microgram) have shown inhibition of immune function. One study showed that 16 tiny amalgam fillings in the mouth of a monkey induced a significant increase in mercury and antibiotic resistant bacteria in mouth and intestine. Another study showed 12 amalgam fillings in sheep caused a 50% reduction of kidney function." http://www.ephca.com/ci&cme.htm

What this means is that the global flood would be very harmful for Noah, the fish and life on earth. Belief in the global flood makes the Bible which is God's word, look foolish and wrong. YEC advocates would do well to realize the problems their viewpoint adds to God's word.

I would like to thank Steve Smith for his gracious critique and help in rooting out errors in my original post. Any errors remaining are mine.

Today @ 02:27 AM post located here
grmorton:

What this means is that the global flood would be very harmful for Noah, the fish and life on earth. Belief in the global flood makes the Bible which is God's word, look foolish and wrong. YEC advocates would do well to realize the problems their viewpoint adds to God's word.

When one looks at all of the deleterious effects of 'catastrophic plate tectonics' and placing most of the earth's volcanism into 6ky (or one year - the flood year - as some believers suggest), life certainly becomes a tenuous prospect. If the heat flows didn't sterilize the earth, then the toxicity would certainly extinguish all but the most simple lifeforms.

Calculations about events that happened thousands of years ago and that can not be replicated has never been too impressive in my book.

I guess I have read too many proposals for advanced weapon systems that turned out to be way optimistic (and sometimes just flat out wrong) for me to be impressed with such calculations as Morton engages in. And in the weapon system field people had the advantage of excellent data about current conditions. Of course they also had a disadvantage in that what was assumed could be tested once some hardware was built (and usually didn't pan out as well as expected if at all).

In Morton's case he has an inverse set of conditions: he can't verify his assumptions of conditions in the past and he can't be proven wrong unless we experience another Flood of global proportions and measure the results.

The best that can be said is that if every thing had to happen as Morton thinks it had to happen then he might have a case. But the truth is that it is rather difficult to know because we have no reasonable way to test the predicted outcome.

Ditto in spades for what aniso thinks about "heat flow" etc.

I should also add that Morton has lost all sense of perspective by posting material on his website that is intended to ridicule other Christian brothers and sisters that happen to disagree with him.

He may think he is clever and funny, but the truth is that he will have to account for such behavior someday. At a minimum his works will be "burned up" and his "rewards in heaven" may not amount to much. Let us hope he will repent of such behavior and work in a manner that is more pleasing to God.

"Calculations about events that happened thousands of years ago and that can not be replicated has never been too impressive in my book."

Either the flood took place according to the same principles of science as hold today, or it lies outside the realm of science. If "creation science" is really science it ought to address these issues.

Socratism:


In Morton's case he has an inverse set of conditions: he can't verify his assumptions of conditions in the past and he can't be proven wrong unless we experience another Flood of global proportions and measure the results.

The best that can be said is that if every thing had to happen as Morton thinks it had to happen then he might have a case. But the truth is that it is rather difficult to know because we have no reasonable way to test the predicted outcome.

The thing I notice is that observational data seems to play no role in your belief system. We have no way of verifying the resurrection of Christ today. We have to depend upon the testimony of a few hundred individuals with whom we can never converse. To claim that everything in the past is subject to assumption is true but useless as an epistemological foundation. To go that way actually destroys Christianity because Christianity depends utterly on the observation that Christ bodily rose from the dead. I will never give up a belief in the validity of scientific observation because it is the very epistemological basis of Christianity.

Ditto in spades for what aniso thinks about "heat flow" etc.

I should also add that Morton has lost all sense of perspective by posting material on his website that is intended to ridicule other Christian brothers and sisters that happen to disagree with him.

I want to stay on science here. Do you have any scientific problems with my web pages? Is there a fact there that is false and you can document it with either a line of solid logic (assumptions all displayed), calculations, or citations from the scientific literature?

He may think he is clever and funny, but the truth is that he will have to account for such behavior someday. At a minimum his works will be "burned up" and his "rewards in heaven" may not amount to much. Let us hope he will repent of such behavior and work in a manner that is more pleasing to God.

I would suggest that my spiritual state is not a scientific matter. Do you have a scientific case to make against the one I make?

aniso:
When one looks at all of the deleterious effects of 'catastrophic plate tectonics' and placing most of the earth's volcanism into 6ky (or one year - the flood year - as some believers suggest), life certainly becomes a tenuous prospect. If the heat flows didn't sterilize the earth, then the toxicity would certainly extinguish all but the most simple lifeforms.

At the risk of dragging this thread a little off focus a bit, but in similar note to this point, I wonder how YECists work out the chronology of all those Extinction-Level asteroid/meteor strikes (IIRC, there are a minimum of seven to be accounted for)? The one in Chicxulub that punctuated the end of the Cretaceous wasn't even the largest one, but it had world-wide consequences nonetheless.

Take care.

And I've neen wondering what the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere would have to be to lay down all those carbonates in the flood year.

Socratism:

Calculations about events that happened thousands of years ago and that can not be replicated has never been too impressive in my book.

Indeed, we should be skeptical of sceptical junk on some internet page.

I guess I have read too many proposals for advanced weapon systems that turned out to be way optimistic (and sometimes just flat out wrong) for me to be impressed with such calculations as Morton engages in. And in the weapon system field people had the advantage of excellent data about current conditions. Of course they also had a disadvantage in that what was assumed could be tested once some hardware was built (and usually didn't pan out as well as expected if at all).

And you are right to be skeptical given Morton's well known tendency to bluff in all sorts of areas despite being unqualified. It was a joke to see him argue the Hebrew of Genesis with Hebrew scholar Gray Pilgrim.

I should also add that Morton has lost all sense of perspective by posting material on his website that is intended to ridicule other Christian brothers and sisters that happen to disagree with him.

Worse, he is deliriously happy when atheists use his material to justify their faith and attack the faith of Christians Just look at his anti-Christian admirers on TWeb.

He may think he is clever and funny,

His capacity for incredible self-inflation should never be underestimated • Edited by a Moderator • And he is too busy being paranoid to be funny.

At a minimum his works will be "burned up" and his "rewards in heaven" may not amount to much. Let us hope he will repent of such behavior and work in a manner that is more pleasing to God.

Yes, there is always hope that he will submit to God's Word rather than trying to tell God what He really meant to say.

grmorton:

The thing I notice is that observational data seems to play no role in your belief system.

Crap. Eye-witness observation has a vital role. That's why I trust the eye-witness observation of a recent Creation and global Flood by the very Creator Himself! Morton has only assumptions about the past totally divorced from the eye-witness accounts he affects to believe in.

We have no way of verifying the resurrection of Christ today. We have to depend upon the testimony of a few hundred individuals with whom we can never converse.

But we have the written record of such reliable eye-witness, iand that's the whole point. This same resurrected Lord affirmed a recent Creation and global Flood and was descended from Adam.

To claim that everything in the past is subject to assumption is true but useless as an epistemological foundation. To go that way actually destroys Christianity because Christianity depends utterly on the observation that Christ bodily rose from the dead. I will never give up a belief in the validity of scientific observation because it is the very epistemological basis of Christianity.

Now Morton bluffs with big words like "epistemological", without understanding them a bit! The resurrection can't be proved under the methodological naturalism that masquerades as science, but is a one-off event supported by eye-witness accounts. • Edited by a Moderator •

Liberals are more consistent than Morton -- they assert that the same "science" that contradicts Genesis also contradicts the idea that dead men rise. So they interpret the Rez narratives the same way Morton butchers Genesis.

I want to stay on science here. Do you have any scientific problems with my web pages? Is there a fact there that is false and you can document it with either a line of solid logic (assumptions all displayed), calculations, or citations from the scientific literature?

And in what journal were these trashy web pages published?

Also, once more, when an anti-creationist • Edited by a Moderator • deludes himself into thinking that a creationist has no answer, he demands that we abandon the Bible. But will an evolutionist abandon his materialistic paradigm in the face of unsolved problems? (Where's Muzik's pig-flying avatar when you need it? Maybe not, because Morton will probably whinge about that).

I would suggest that my spiritual state is not a scientific matter. Do you have a scientific case to make against the one I make?

Ah yes, once again, Morton wants to take a pseudo-scientific assumption of materialism to the past, and ignore eye-witness testimony to the contrary. • Edited by a Moderator • This includes infallible eyewitness testimony of a world-wide flood that extinguished all land vertebrates outside the Ark.

Today @ 05:24 AM post located here
Socrates:
This includes infallible eyewitness testimony of a world-wide flood that extinguished all land vertebrates outside the Ark.

You, sir, apparently have no familiarity with the literary concepts of metaphor and allegory. It is truly a shame to see you waste so much energy on such small thinking.

Socrates:

Ah yes, once again, Morton wants to take a pseudo-scientific assumption of materialism to the past, and ignore eye-witness testimony to the contrary. A real scientist as opposed to someone with only an undergrad degree knows it's important to take into account ALL data. This includes infallible eyewitness testimony of a world-wide flood that extinguished all land vertebrates outside the Ark.

The problem Socrates, is that science is also based upon eye-witness testimony. If we deny what we see with our eyes when we study the world, it means that eye-witness testimony is not to be trusted. And if as you are doing, we deny scientific eye-witness testimony, there is then no reason to believe the eyewitness testimony of which you speak. All knowledge lives or dies with eye-witness testimony and that included theological knowledge. Your argument is self-defeating and undermines both science and Scripture.

Do you look down on the young-earther's here who also don't have a Ph.D. If so, that is sad. At least I have actually published in real scientific journals. I will let that speak for my qualifications and that will be my last response on qualifications. Logically, your appeal that you should be listened to because you stayed in school longer is an appeal to authority. You should look up it up in the logic book I used in graduate school--Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, MacMillan, 1972, p.80

Today @ 09:10 AM post located here
Monkey Boy:
You, sir, apparently have no familiarity with the literary concepts of metaphor and allegory. It is truly a shame to see you waste so much energy on such small thinking.

And you sir have lost all sense of perspective and common sense by claiming the extensive accounts of the creation and flood are metaphor and allegory.

It is not hard even for a layperson in Hebrew like myself to conclude that these accounts were not intended to have some sort of mystical interpretation, one which people who make such claims can not even tell us what the mystical interpretation means.

The only reason for such strange behavior is that these people have been brainwashed by the constant barrage of propaganda about evolution that they have lost the ability to think logically.

I consider the atheists to be more consistent about scripture, for they recognize that if one cannot depend on eyewitness reporting about Creation and the the Flood then this skepticism would also go for the rest of scripture. They simply say scripture is false and let it go at that

But those who claim to be Christians want to evaluate scripture against current societal views and "pick and choose" what to believe and what to write off as some sort of mystical "allegorical/metaphorical" interpretation, where they never get around to explaining the meaning, probably because they are embarassed to admit that they either have none or what they would offer is so naive.

Socratism:
I consider the atheists to be more consistent about scripture, for they recognize that if one cannot depend on eyewitness reporting about Creation and the the Flood then this skepticism would also go for the rest of scripture. They simply say scripture is false and let it go at that

It is amazing to me that more young-earther's don't recognize the clear fact that by denying any and all observational data from science, they thereby undermine the veracity of Biblical eyewitness testimony. The entire epistemological basis of Christianity is undermined. If you can't trust what we see in science, how can we trust what the disciples claimed when they were at the tomb? How can we trust the eyewitness accounts of miracles?

That Sunday morning long ago, the disciples ran to the tomb to see for themselves that there was no body in the grave. Thomas required seeing Jesus before he would believe. That is eyewitness testimony and the fact that Thomas was a skeptic actually helps his credibility as a witness. It was the observation of the empty tomb and the observation of Jesus walking around which Christianity is based upon. Deny the reality of observational data and you deny the basis of our faith. As a Christian today I simply have to depend upon the veracity of the disciple's eyewitness observational data. Science is merely based upon the same.

I'm not here to pick sides, or anything.. or to defend anyone with my following question/repsonse.. but I did feel this needed addressing:

Socrates Said:

Liberals are more consistent than Morton -- they assert that the same "science" that contradicts Genesis also contradicts the idea that dead men rise. So they interpret the Rez narratives the same way Morton butchers Genesis.

I don't find this to be true completely.. although I agree that Science cannot yet explain 'dead men rising', it doesn't 'contradict' it at all. In fact, there are numerous cases of people being presumed dead by medical experts, machines etc.. but then have gotten up in the Morgue or on the way etc. These things have not been fully explained by Science, although numerous theories abound (from when I last looked anyway).

Science doesn't 'contradict' something it as yet has no explanation for, it merely 'ignores' it as being fact until proven.

What you are expressing here is the suppositions made by Scientists from that data (or lack of), and not what Science itself says.

Basically, I can say Dragons (of the mythical type) once existed. Science cannot actually prove me wrong.. but what Science can do is say that there is no evidence to support such a claim. Scientists can them claim I am full of doggie doo-doo, based upon their personal opinion, but Science will just ignore me until I show some 'facts', and not be so condescending itself.

Does that make sense? It just seems like a lot of people attack Science, not for science itself, but for the opinions of the Scientists..

Anyway, wasn't an attack on Socrates, or in defense of certain Scientists etc.. was just pointing out that just because some scientists claim the Ressurrection didn't happen based upon what they currently see, doesn't actually mean that science itself has said it is 'impossible'. Until we understand more, and can explain completely the unusual phenomenon of some people getting up when presumed dead, Science itself simply ignores such subjects.. scientists, however, do not.


Love and Peace

JCA


PS - Sorry for the thread drift.. please return to your normal programming

Today @ 12:44 PM post located here
grmorton:



It is amazing to me that more young-earther's don't recognize the clear fact that by denying any and all observational data from science, they thereby undermine the veracity of Biblical eyewitness testimony. The entire epistemological basis of Christianity is undermined. If you can't trust what we see in science, how can we trust what the disciples claimed when they were at the tomb? How can we trust the eyewitness accounts of miracles?

That Sunday morning long ago, the disciples ran to the tomb to see for themselves that there was no body in the grave. Thomas required seeing Jesus before he would believe. That is eyewitness testimony and the fact that Thomas was a skeptic actually helps his credibility as a witness. It was the observation of the empty tomb and the observation of Jesus walking around which Christianity is based upon. Deny the reality of observational data and you deny the basis of our faith. As a Christian today I simply have to depend upon the veracity of the disciple's eyewitness observational data. Science is merely based upon the same.

This is completely off base. It is observational data from within the text itself, something you reject for God's explanation of how He did things. You are doing a switch.

Today @ 11:31 AM post located here
Socratism:



And you sir have lost all sense of perspective and common sense by claiming the extensive accounts of the creation and flood are metaphor and allegory.

I think my irony meter just blew a gasket!

Dee Dee Warren:

This is completely off base. It is observational data from within the text itself, something you reject for God's explanation of how He did things. You are doing a switch.

You gotta be kidding. It is right on target. How did the Scripture come to report that Jesus made really fine wine from water? Well, people saw (observational data) people bring in jugs of water. They saw (observational data) Jesus pouring wine out of the jugs, or at least something that resembled wine (observational data). Then they tasted the wine with the observation that it was very good tasting, had a high alcohol content as determined by the buzz they got drinking it (observational data). It was repeatable (as required by science) because several people got a buzz off the wine.

How do I know any of this is true? I know because I trust the observational data (that the people were capable of making such observations) and I trust their testimony.

What I wouldn't trust is any whooey about certain methodologies Jesus may have used to performed the miracle. He did it. H20, lacking carbon means that a mere chemical rearrangement of the atoms won't work.Water also lacks tannins and other chemicals necessary for a wine. So if some crazy man clams that Jesus rearranged water atoms to make alcohol, I will know he is full of it.

What I find odd with global flood advocates is that they claim to trust eye-witness testimony but then give lots of whooey about how the flood occurred. Most of that whooey contradicts what we actually see in the world. Thus, what is false is their story of the flood because it is the same as claiming that chemical reorganization caused the wine. It simply isn't the way it is done.

And since all the Scriptural writers were sinners just like us, we can expect that they had the same observational abilities as we do. If we say a modern scientist can't observe the data correctly, then we are saying that the ancient man couldn't either. Our abilities are the same. And if our abilities can't come to the correct observation of the world, then neither can his. I repeat, we rise or fall based upon observational data.

And it is inconsistent what the anti-science people do.

How do you know there are germs?
Ans. because a scientist told me. They didn't actually observe the germ but they believe the eyewitness testmony.

Same thing applies to other things.
How do you know there is an atom?
How do you know there are cosmic rays? ever see one?
How do you know there is calcium in milk? ever measure it?
How do you know there is phosphorous in bananas? ever measure it yourself?

No of course we don't measure these things ourselves. We trust the eye-witness testimony of others. With things like this the anti-science people trust the scientist to tell them the truth. Only when it violates theological presuppositions do we doubt them.

So, from an epistemological consistency point of view and from the fact that scientists are doing nothing different than the people at the Cana wedding did, my claim that we all rise of fall based upon observational data stands.