Search This Blog

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Let's try this again. Catastrophism and not Uniformitariansim!


Repeat and rinse:

In medical jargon, an “error cascade” is something very specific: a series of escalating errors in diagnosis or treatment, each one amplifying the effect of the previous one. This is a well established term in the medical literature.


There’s a slightly different term, information cascade

which is used to describe the propagation of beliefs and attitudes through crowd psychology. Information cascades occur because humans are social animals and tend to follow the behavior of those around them. When the social incentives are right, humans will substitute the judgment of others for their own.


A useful, related concept is preference falsification

the act of misrepresenting one’s desires or beliefs under perceived social pressures. Preference falsification amplifies informational cascades — humans don’t just substitute the judgment of others for their own, they talk themselves into beliefs most around them don’t actually hold but have become socially convinced they should claim to hold!


The prevailing Darwinist Paradigm starts science off on the wrong foot, so that they have a terrible time coming to relatively obvious conclusions if one is not encumbered with the error of thinking that there is no possiblity of a Creator God and not a chance fo a Noahic Flood. Yet eventually scientists slowly creep their way farther and farther from uniformitarianism and eventually perhaps they will rethink their original starting point.


Worldview predicts conclusions in advance to some extent. EG: The Grand Canyon and the slow but steady realization by modern geologists that it represents a catastrophic formation and not millions of years of steady erosion. Here is the latest on the subject from Bill Browning of RMCF:


Secular Geologists Subscribe to the Creationist "Breached-Dam Theory" for the Formation of the Grand Canyon PDF Print
Written by Mr. Bill Browning


This month, an episode of History Channel's series "How the Earth Was Made" was devoted to catastrophic flood origins for the Grand Canyon, a theory that has been promoted by creationist geologists for decades. The theory is attributed to a geologist at a community college in Phoenix, Dr. John Douglass, who presented his analysis at a symposium on the "Origin and Evolution" of the Canyon in the year 2000.


Details of the Breached Dam Theory, which released enormous amounts of lake water trapped east of the Canyon by the East Kaibab Upwarp of the Colorado Plateau, were given long before (1994) in Dr. Steven A. Austin's treatise on the Grand Canyon, "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe." (13) Chapter 5 includes probable shoreline maps of an ancient lake, produced by Dr. Ed Holroyd, an RMCF member, which show the enormous drainage basin (30,000 square miles) just east of the Grand Canyon. The hypothesized lake was dubbed "Canyonlands Lake" by Austin.

The creationist theory recognizes that after the Great Flood of Noah, the giant basin east of the Grand Canyon could have been filled by huge lakes caused by the natural dam formed by the Kaibab Upwarp (Figure 1). Catastrophic release of more water than Lake Michigan would have drained through a dam breach caused by overtopping of this dam and/or piping through the dam. The theory relies on the existence of other large-scale flood relicts such as the Grand Coulee and the Columbia Gorge of Washington State which were formed by the catastrophic drainage of Glacial Lake Missoula.

Breached-Dam Theory of Grand Canyon Formation

The breached-dam theory of Canyon formation is consistent with evidence of ancient lakes just east of the watershed; for example, the Bidahochi Formation, thought to have been deposited in "Lake Hopi" on the site of what is now the canyon of the Little Colorado River. The Bidahochi contains laminated silt and greenish clay layers with freshwater fish fossils and beaver remains.

Further evidence is given by landforms known to result from accelerated drainage activity, including underfit streams and the incised meanders of the San Juan River, which form only under conditions of large magnitude discharge. We also find relict landforms such as the sapping structures in side canyons and stable cliff structures with noticeable lack of talus, where the benches at cliff bases have apparently been swept clean by flooding. The cliffs are characterized by red mud stain accumulations, indicating that erosion today is extremely slow. According to Austin (13-102), Pliocene sediments associated with the delta of the Colorado River (Bousse Formation near the CA-AZ border and the Imperial Formation of the Salton Trough area) contain deltaic deposits which appear abruptly, and pebbles beneath the delta have local sources and indicate there was no large river in the area before the deltaic sands and mud was deposited. Therefore, the Pliocene establishment of the lower Colorado River seems confirmed. Taken together, we have significant evidence that Grand Canyon and the region upstream have been eroded chiefly by catastrophic agents.

When I visited the Grand Canyon in the early 90's, the politically correct story told by the Rangers at the Visitor Center was the so-called "precocious gully theory." Before the Canyon was formed, the Colorado River was thought to flow southward. The story was that a gully was cut eastward from the Hualapai drainage (western side of the Kaibab Upwarp ), which eventually eroded through the Upwarp and captured the Colorado River and took it westward through the gully, which became the Grand Canyon. This model allows for both an ancient river and a more recent canyon, which coincides with the prevailing dogma.



So what took geologists so long to come around to a flood model of Canyon formation? The concept of rapid breaching of the Kaibab Upwarp by drainage from ancient lakes has a long history. In fact, it is the oldest explanation of the formation of Grand Canyon, being contained in Havasupai Indian legends. The Indians still tell the story of how the Canyon was formed after the world was covered by a Great Flood. (Many such Flood traditions exist throughout ancient cultures worldwide.)

The following history of the development of the breached-dam theory is found on page 109 of Austin's book with further comments in italics.

* The concept was first documented by J.S. Newberry in 1861 (1).
* Hints followed in the work of Eliot Blackwelder in 1934 (2). According to Douglass, Blackwelder's insights have been unfortunately "downplayed" in the last half century. [True, except by creationists.].
* Geologic evidence of a large lake in northeastern Arizona ("Hopi Lake") was provided by Howel Williams in 1936, (3) which contains the Bidahochi Formation described by John Douglass in the History Channel account as the remains of an ancient lake which was the source of the initial flood waters. (Douglass does not mention Hopi Lake or Williams' discovery).
* As described by G.C. Bowles in 1978, tectonic activity was thought to have blocked the flow of the Colorado River, creating a large lake behind the Kaibab plateau, followed by piping failure. (4)
* Creationists were suggesting catastrophic drainage models beginning in the 1960's. Bernard E. Northrup proposed in 1968 that erosion of Grand Canyon was caused by release of trapped glacial melt waters in the post-Flood period centuries after Noah's Flood. His theory was updated in the First International Conference on Creationism, 1986, Proceedings, Vol.2 p.147.
* One of the most noteworthy early creationist statements of the breached dam theory appeared in the writings of Clifford L. Burdick in 1974.(5)
* Post Flood ponding of water east of Grand Canyon behind a tectonic upwarp was suggested as the cause leading to cutting the canyon by Steven A. Austin and John H. Whitmore in 1986. (6)
* Edmond W. Holroyd, III, recognized in 1986-7 that a lake bigger than one of the Great Lakes could be contained upstream of the Grand Canyon if the canyon were blocked at approximately the 5600 foot elevation (7)

* The breached-dam theory was described in 1988 by Steven A. Austin in a field guidebook used by ICR-sponsored rafters through the canyon. (8) The guidebook was updated in 1990 when I traveled through the Canyon with Dr. Austin on the ICR field trip.
* Later, after reading Austin's 1988 Field guidebook, Walter T. Brown, Jr., offered specific details to the theory, placing the lake boundary at 5700 ft. elevation, and naming the lake "Grand Lake."(9)

* Interesting field evidences for catastrophic drainage of lakes . . .were documented by Edmond W. Holroyd, III, in 1990. (10) The paper displays the boundaries of a hypothesized post-glacial lake comparable in size to Lake Superior at elevation of 5600 ft., and suggests that the lack of talus near its shoreline cliffs could be due to wave action in an ancient lake.
* A summary of some of these theories was published by E.L. Williams, J.R. Meyer, and G.W. Wolfrom in 1992. (11)
* Further comments were provided by Michael J. Oard in 1993. (12)
* Dr. Austin's book mentioned above containing a detailed dam-breach scenario for the formation of the canyon, and "Canyonlands Lake," was published in 1994. (13)
* There began a gradual increase in the acceptability of a catastrophic model of origins for the canyon, as exemplified by the paper by John Douglass, presented at a Symposium on Canyon origins in 2000 (14). The History Channel documentary gives Douglass full credit, calling the idea "His Own Theory" and "His Spillover Theory."

Only one of the many sources of documentation of the flood origin of Grand Canyon was considered in the paper by Douglass --the Blackwelder paper in 1934. In his paper, Douglass claims to have "reinvented" the theory in 1992 without knowledge of Blackwelder's work. What about the other dozen or so? Decades of creationist research, including Austin's landmark book, were ignored. One can only conjecture as to the reason(s), such as:

(1) Entrenched uniformitarianism, like that which caused the rejection of. J. Harlan Bretz's theory of the flood origin for the Scablands of Washington State. His ideas were finally accepted some forty years later, after many of the objectors passed away. (After all, a flood model might imply Noah's Flood, which had been censored from the field of geology since Darwin's day.)

(2) Perhaps creationists are considered religious fanatics and cannot be trusted to do good geology, or maybe because Austin's work was published by the Institute for Creation Research, rather than in a peer-reviewed journal.
(3) A lack of evidence for any ancient lakes upstream of the Colorado River ("Canyonlands Lake"). (Only the remains of Hopi Lake has adequate documentation, but it does not straddle the Colorado River.)
(4) Perhaps Douglass wanted to give his own name to the hypothesized lake, which he called "Lake Bidahochi", after the lake sediments found in Lake Hopi/Painted Desert region, where the breach could have first started, and which is now thought to contain the canyon of the Little Colorado. So now we have three names for the lake.
(5) Dr. Holroyd has stated (interview 12/22/09) that the dam is elevated a quarter-mile above the highest lake level, and that the spillover point does not coincide with the Canyon, but would be to the north near Vermillion cliffs. As yet, there is no explanation for why the flood took the path it did.

Based on analysis of a more recent flood formation on the Mojave River, CA, Douglass argues in his paper that the absence of lake sediments along the Colorado does not necessarily mean they were not there, and could have been lost during the rapid draining event and its aftermath His model .also recognizes recent analyses of the Bousse Formation (Colorado River delta in lower CA) which shows strontium concentrations which are consistent with inflows of the Colorado River, and give an event date of 6Ma (the accepted date of Canyon formation). Douglass places the dam/spillover point near Grandview Point on the South Rim, where he believes the western slope of the Kaibab Plateau was sufficient to initiate incision, being 1500m above base level at Lake Mead below. As the channel was catastrophically downcut, it would have worked its way back via "headword" erosion similar to what we see occurring today at Niagara Falls, as shown in animated graphics of the History Channel documentary.

Crucial to establishing validity of the lake spillover theory was the need to establish a date for the lake that is consistent with consensus dates for the formation of the canyon.. In the documentary, Douglass dramatically discovers some fresh water mollusk "fossils" in the lake sediments, which he claims date the lake bed at six million years. If one looks closely at the video, you can see that the clay is unconsolidated dirt, and the "fossils" are pristine and unmineralized, implying a much more recent burial.

Further evidence for the time frame was alleged in the documentary by John Pederson of Utah State, who dated sand deposits at Lees Ferry using luminescence (OSL) techniques and determined the cutting rate to be 1" per century, which is claimed to be consistent with cutting the canyon in about 5.5 My. This is very confusing from two standpoints: a) Sand sediments at Lees Ferry have nothing to do with the canyon, because it is upstream of the canyon. (The River actually flows on top of the Kaibab limestone, the top layer of the canyon. Sand deposits at Lees Ferry would have likely come from Glen canyon.) b) Douglass promotes a rapid, catastrophic incision of the canyon, not a uniformitarian approach based on " 1 inch per century."

So, in spite of the fact that the Canyon is now considered to be much more recent than originally believed (70Mya), models based on dating techniques still take enormous amounts of time to explain it.

So, how well accepted is this neo-catastrophist approach to modeling Grand Canyon? A review of the Proceedings of the GC Symposium of 2000 showed that the theory was published in a section named "Speculation." By contacting the Park Service, it was determined that Park geologists have not bought in to the idea. Therefore, it is a little too soon to celebrate. But it's great that a new theory close to the creationist model has been brought to the public eye, and the "age" of the canyon has been greatly shortened.

Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon

Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon. The river flow direction is away from the camera.
'Canyons' below Mount St Helens
One of the many small stream canyons in the valley below Mount St. Helens. River flow is toward the camera.

NOTE: My google image search found these images above and they orginated with jwoolfden. I had thought those were part of my collection obtained from another site. I am glad to give attribution. I had collected them previously and had them saved on my desktop and thus got them confused with another source but after research it is obvious that jwoolfden deserves the credit.

The differences in size are noted, but the aftermath of the Mt St Helens volcanic catastrophic events produced miniature canyons much like that of the Grand Canyon. Geologists have begun to take note and reconsider...

Historical References


(1) Newberry, J. S., "Geological Report," in J.C. Ives , Report Upon the Colorado River of the West, U.S. 36th Congress1st session, House Executive Doc. 90 Part 3 1861], 154 p.).
(2) Blackwelder, Eliot, "Origin of Colorado River, Geological Society of America Bulletin 45 1934] : 551-556.
(3) Williams, Howel, "Pliocene Volcanoes of the Navajo-Hopi Country", Geological Society of America Bulletin 47 [1936]: 111-172.
(4) G.C. Bowles, "Reinterpretation of Grand Canyon Morphology", United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1100 [1978]: p.72.
(5) Burdick, Clifford L., The Canyon of Canyons Caldwell Idaho, Bible Science Association,1974, p.27
(6) Austin, Steven A. and Whitmore, John H. Grand Canyon Field Study Tour Guidebook , March 23-30, 1986, [Santee, Clalifornia, Institute for Creation Research, 1986], p.48.
(7) Holroyd, Edmond W., III "Missing Talus," Creation Research Society Quarterly 24 [1987]: 15,16.
(8) Austin, Steven A., Grand Canyon Field Tour Guidebook, April 9-16, 1988 [Santee, California, Institute for Creation Research, 1988 pp.50-54.
(9) Brown, Walter T, Jr., In the Beginning, [Phoenix, Arizona, Center for Scientific Creation, Fifth Edition, 1989, p. 83
(10) Holroyd, Edmund W., Jr.," Missing Talus on the Colorado Plateau," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, 2, [1990]: 115-128.
(11) Williams, E.L, . Meyer, J.R. , and Wolfrom G.W., "Erosion of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River: Part III--Review of the Possible Formation of Basin and Lakes on Colorado Plateau and Different Climatic Conditions in the Past", Creation Research Society Quarterly 29 [1992]:18-24..
(12) Oard, Michael J., "Comments on the Breached Dam Theory for the Formation of the Grand Canyon," Creation Research Society Quarterly 30 [1993]: 39-46.
(13) Austin, Steven A., "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe," Institute for Creation Research, 1994, pp.92-104.
(14) Douglass, John and Meek, Norman, "Lake Overflow: An Alternative Hypothesis for Grand Canyon Incision and Development of the Colorado River," Proceedings of a Symposium on the Colorado River Origin and Evolution, Held at Grand Canyon National Park, June 2000, Edited by Young and Spamer, pp.199-204.



Courtesy of Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship. Posted by permission.

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile...

creeper said...

Is there really any point in wading through this discussion if you still can't get the meaning of uniformitarianism straight?

1. Radar, uniformitarianism does not mean that (relatively) sudden disasters cannot occur. Volcanoes erupting, tsunamis, floods, meteors hitting the Earth etc. - all perfectly compatible with uniformitarianism.

Which, as you may have guessed, in turn means that evidence of catastrophes having occurred does not somehow disprove uniformitarianism.

2. What's with this so-called "creationist" "Breached-Dam Theory"? I thought the YEC position was that the Grand Canyon had been deposited rapidly, not that existing layers (which were deposited when?) were rapidly carved out.

So how is this breached-dam theory supposed to confirm creationism and refute, well what exactly? Old Earth geology?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"The prevailing Darwinist Paradigm starts science off on the wrong foot, so that they have a terrible time coming to relatively obvious conclusions if one is not encumbered with the error of thinking that there is no possiblity of a Creator God and not a chance fo a Noahic Flood."

1. Science is not based on a "Darwinist Paradigm", but on the scientific method, as you well know.

2. Science is not "encumbered with the error of thinking that there is no possiblity of a Creator God". Science doesn't reject God, but - seeing as there is no natural evidence of God's existence - simply can't include God in.

And that's a good thing, making science useful and effective. Imagine if we had to include all the deities and creation myths of all faiths just based on people's say-so. What a mess we'd have.

So relax, Radar. Science is neutral on the subject of God. Should any scientific evidence for God's existence be discovered, by all means that's when God can be included in science.

3. Re. "and not a chance fo a Noahic Flood" - well, it happens to be in contradiction with available evidence, so this conclusion isn't an "error in thinking" at all.

-- creeper

Chaos Engineer said...

I can't remember if I've posted this before, but Chris Clarke did a detailed timeline of the history of the Grand Canyon.

It looks like a lot of the Grand Canyon was dug out in a major flood around 5.3 million years ago, but there was a considerable amount of erosion after that and the canyon didn't reach it's current depth until 1.8 million years ago. So it's a combination of Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism.

Have Creation Scientists ever come up with this sort of detailed model that explains all the different rock types in the canyon? (Like why there's a 600-foot-thick layer of sandstone in the middle, which appears to have formed in desert conditions.)

Do you suppose it might be possible to create a mini-Grand Canyon by filling a tank with rocks and soil and spraying water on it for 40 days? I know you could get erosion gullies, but I'm not sure how you'd get the soil to rearrange itself in such neat layers...

creeper said...

"Have Creation Scientists ever come up with this sort of detailed model that explains all the different rock types in the canyon?"

Excellent point. It seems that YEC "science" just consists of trying to poke holes into any old aspect of an old Earth and/or evolution and then crowing about victory. Coming up with a coherent explanation that takes into account what our world would look like if it were 6,000 years old or trying to explain something like the Grand Canyon in detail (or plate tectonics etc.) doesn't seem to be a priority for them. Hardly surprising, as they soon run into all kinds of contradictions and problems. The fact that we don't see an ice core layer deposited every few days (instead of every year) is only the beginning of their problems.

That's the kind of mess you get into when you start with the conclusion (Earth can't be more than 6,000 years old) and try to come up with explanations to fit that.

-- creeper

AmericanVet said...

There is a lot of ignorance in the comment threads. The layers of the Grand Canyon are typical of layering associated with a flood, simply on a grander scale. These layers would have been associated with the flood.

The later breach of a wall in a lake containing more water than the combined Great Lakes of today is then responsible for the canyon itself. Certainly such a massive amount of fresh water could explain the deep canyon.

The local Indian legends include a worldwide flood and also a Grand Canyon formed by a breech in a walled-off body of fresh water that had been growing as glacial and seasonal melt built it up.

All of these events probably happened about 4300 years ago according to the Bible. Thus, the cross and inter-bedding of the layers in the Grand Canyon are explained and the "water flowing uphill" problem is solved.

creeper said...

"There is a lot of ignorance in the comment threads."

I'd love to hear your take on what constitutes ignorance in the comment threads...

"The layers of the Grand Canyon are typical of layering associated with a flood, simply on a grander scale. These layers would have been associated with the flood."

You want to try your hand at Chaos Engineer's question above?

Why is there a 600-foot-thick layer of sandstone in the middle, which appears to have formed in desert conditions?

How is that "typical of layering associated with a flood"?

-- creeper

radar said...

The Redwall Sandstone is actually water-formed, proven by its concentrations of water-dwelling fossils. To quote the FCGC historical society and the U of Utah"
"Faunal zones and assernblages-The fauna of the Redwall is large and varied. The most common forms are foraminifers, brachiopods, corals, and crinoids; also common are bryozoans, gastropods, pelecypods, cephalopods, and blastoids. Fish, ostracodes, trilobites, holothurians, and algae occur in some parts of the formation. The larger fossil groups occur in distinctive associations, the most important of which are the coral-brachiopod-crinoid, coral-foraminifer-brachiopod, and brachiopod-bryozoan. The distribution of these associations apparently was controlled by environmental factors as indicated by the different facies of carbonate sediments."

This Redwall also crossbeds with the Muav (Cambrian, they say) several times, which by Darwinist suppositions should not be possible.

radar said...

Therefore, the Sandstone is not the product of millions of years of desert but rather a large sedimentary deposit left by the Noahic Flood. Cross-bedding and "missing" or juxtaposed layers are explained by hydraulic action if a massive flood is the answer. This would also explain megabreccias and polystrate fossils, which are indefensible in logical arguments about Darwinism.

creeper said...

1. The desert-formed layer of sandstone is not the Redwall Sandstone, but the Coconino Sandstone.

2. If the Redwall Sandstone was deposited during Noah's flood, as you claim, then why does it only feature fossils from a certain geological period, instead of a mad jumble of just about anything, from trilobytes to domestic cats - or humans for that matter?

3. A fellow Christian has been kind enough to explain the Redwall/Muav crossbedding here (about halfway down the page):

"The blotchy nature of the contact between what the authors call the Muav and what they call the Redwall looks like a secondary, post-depositional feature (diagenetic) rather than a primary, depositional feature. This could have been formed by groundwater at any time after the deposition of the Redwall Limestone. If this were true interbedding, it certainly would have been puzzled over by many a geologist hiking along the very popular North Kaibab Trail in the Grand Canyon.""

and

"The Temple Butte Limestone fills these channels. Paleontological evidence suggests that this is a freshwater limestone. How did this happen during a global salt-water flood?"

4. "by Darwinist suppositions", "logical arguments about Darwinism"

Um, yeah, because "Darwinism" has a lot to do with geology, right. Uh-huh. You do realize this kind of confusion just makes you look more ignorant, don't you?

5. "Therefore, the Sandstone is not the product of millions of years of desert but rather a large sedimentary deposit left by the Noahic Flood."

Nope. You keep confusing making one half-baked "rebuttal" or other of old Earth geology (or evolution as the case may be) with actually building a case for a global flood (or creationism etc.).

Leaving aside for the moment that the Coconino Sandstone very much appears to be desert-formed and is therefore inexplicable according to the global flood model (and thus blows the whole thing out of the water, so to speak), it's quite a leap to suppose that because you think one thing has been rebutted or something (which incidentally it hasn't), that therefore now a global flood is the only and inescapable conclusion.

If you are talking about a global flood, then how on Earth do you explain these layers? How do you explain that the fossils within them are so neatly sorted instead of being a big jumble? Is it even possible for these layers to have formed so very very quickly?

"Cross-bedding and "missing" or juxtaposed layers are explained by hydraulic action if a massive flood is the answer. This would also explain megabreccias and polystrate fossils, which are indefensible in logical arguments about Darwinism."

We can certainly look at concrete examples in detail, but in general I suspect that you're still laboring under the misconception that uniformitarianism states that no catastrophes ever occur, and that, for example, rapid deposits are somehow incompatible with uniformitarianism.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

ROTFLMAO

I'm sorry, I can't help it. The very first time I find this blog, following a link from another blog I read, what do I find on top but a nonsense-post about creationism, a subject I know well. Even better, it's a post about creationist Flood geology and the Grand Canyon -- a subject I know better than well. And the perfect capper: the post uses without attribution two of my very own photographs of Grand Canyon -- photographs which I used to illustrate my very own four-page essay on why the Flood explanation for Grand Canyon fails on all levels.

Maybe later I'll post something in more detail, but right now I'm laffing too harrd ti typ straite...

creeper said...

Welcome to the party, Jon!

BTW, what blog linked you here?

-- creeper

creeper said...

BTW, excellent essay, Jon. Fantastic job taking the creationist claims apart in such great detail. Kudos.

-- creeper

creeper said...

I googled

"One of the many small stream canyons in the valley below Mount St. Helens. River flow is toward the camera."

and only get two results: Jon Woolf's site and Radaractive. So it appears the uncredited use (plagiarism?) is Radar's, not that of the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship, whose permission Radar apparently obtained.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Thanks for the kind words, Creeper. I did my best. :-)

The original of the article that Radaractive reposted here seems to be this page at the RMCF's website. Unless Firefox is somehow choking on it, it contains no photos or other illustrations. It's text only. It appears (and I freely welcome any correction) that the photos in Radaractive's repost are the results of his own research. It also appears that he didn't copy my photos, he hot-linked them.

Since he accurately reproduced both photos as I posted them, with the image-tags, alternate text, and captions all intact, it looks like he block-copied them directly from my page. Radaractive, did you by any chance read the essay around the photos, or did you just grab the photos and not look any further?

In any case, I think "plagiarism" is a bit too strong a word to use here. I'm not interested in causing trouble for anyone either. An attribution and a link would be nice, though ... [hint, hint]

radar said...

I took the photos from a post made previously and if they were originally from John Woolf then certainly he deserves credit. I do not think the Grand Canyon top shot comes from a blog that exists anymore. As for the bottom shots I thought those originated with Steve Austin but I am more than happy to give you credit if you took them. I had thought they had come from Austin.

I have permission to use all material from RCMF as a member of the organization.

That does not get you, creeper, away from the question about your imaginary desert with jellyfish and other sea life as the primary fauna content within the formation. Nor does the nonsensical cross-bedding explanation. In fact, no darwinist has ever explained how a whale carcass or a tree fossil could extend through thousands or even millions of years of rock.

Also, when some sedimentary rock formations can extend for thousands of miles that kind of puts the lie to multiple catastrophic events.

Hydrologists know that floods sort by size, by shape, by location and even by specific gravity. Remains that are not trapped in situ can be transported far from the orgination site and a world-wide flood followed by a wet/volatile/ice age dominated environment for multiple generations is the best explanation for the record of the rocks.

Those of you whose religion is darwinism will never accept this. Trees that extend through "millions of years" of rock or back-and-forth crossbedding and layers out of order are ignored because your belief system is offended. It is a free country and you are free to disagree.

radar said...

As to the freshwater, it is simple. The local Indians such as the Hopi, I believe, tell of a massive lake that was breeched, a lake formed by runoffs from the massive glacial formations that resulted when the floodwaters receded. The water contained in this lake is said to have been greater than the amount of water in the great lakes.

When that lake breeched, as an earlier comment said, the waters poured through the still-soft layers of sedimentary rock and formed the Grand Canyon. Modern science is grudgingly beginning to accept this but place the date far in the past, despite actual clay and remains of bottom-dwelling fauna in the former lakebed rather than simple fossilization. The lake event happened after the flood within the last 4300 years.

Jon Woolf said...

radar,

The photos I'm referring to are the last two in your post, the over-and-under of the Inner Gorge of Grand Canyon and the canyon below Mount St Helens. Both pictures are mine, scanned from slides I took while visiting the areas in question -- Grand Canyon in 1999, Mount St. Helens in 2002.

Regarding this: "In fact, no darwinist has ever explained how a whale carcass or a tree fossil could extend through thousands or even millions of years of rock."

No 'darwinist' has ever explained these things because we don't have to. To the best of my knowledge, which I assure you is considerable, no such thing has ever been found anywhere on Earth. If you have a counterexample, then please post it. (If you doubt the extent of my knowledge on this topic, I recommend you rummage through the rest of the evolution-and-creationism section of my website.)

The rest of your post is (unfortunately) fairly ordinary creationist rhetoric. I think at this point you would be well-advised to read my entire essay, because all the points you raise about the Grand Canyon, the rock it cuts through, and the origins of both, are answered therein.

creeper said...

"That does not get you, creeper, away from the question about your imaginary desert with jellyfish and other sea life as the primary fauna content within the formation."

I answered that question, I guess you missed it - it was the first response in my numbered responses above:

"1. The desert-formed layer of sandstone is not the Redwall Sandstone, but the Coconino Sandstone."

Coconino Sandstone is a geologic formation that spreads across the Colorado Plateau province of the United States, including northern Arizona, northwest Colorado, Nevada, and Utah.[...] It is also present in the Grand Canyon, where it is visible as a prominent white cliff forming layer. [...] It consists primarily of sand deposited by eolian processes (wind-deposited) approximately 260 million years ago.

No sea life, no jellyfish.

And somewhat incompatible with the flood model.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Also, when some sedimentary rock formations can extend for thousands of miles that kind of puts the lie to multiple catastrophic events."

I would think the opposite is true: when you have layer upon layer of different sedimentary rock formations (each containing only certain kinds of fossils) that kind of puts the lie to a single catastrophic event taking place in less than a year.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Hydrologists know that floods sort by size, by shape, by location and even by specific gravity. Remains that are not trapped in situ can be transported far from the orgination site and a world-wide flood followed by a wet/volatile/ice age dominated environment for multiple generations is the best explanation for the record of the rocks."

If it is supposed to be the best explanation... then what exactly is the explanation for fossils being in exactly the strata in which they are found? What mechanism? And has it been tested and confirmed?

Because as it stands, the explanation of evolution and an old Earth is pretty solid in how it fits together. For example, how does a YECer explain how Tiktaalik could be found exactly where predicted, using evolution and old-Earth dating techniques?

-- creeper

radar said...

Good old Tik means nothing, it is simply a fully-formed animal like all other animals found in the fossil record and in life today. I can predict that if you start digging around in the shales and limestones of Southern Indiana you will find trilobites and clams and ferns and all sorts of stuff. Evolutionists are like mystics, predicting various things and only counting the rare occasions when they are right.

Let's see...Ida, Pakicetus, Lucy, Nebraska Man, Haeckel embroyo chart, horse evolution chart, the invention of prokaryotes as unique organisms so that their failure to evolve is ignored...Darwinists lie continually and deceive continually.

Scientific method "proved" that life cannot come from non-life and that kinds produce after their kind. But Darwinist ignore the scientific method and invent fairy tales to explain life.

One of the most complex eyes in all of life was (or perhaps is, they may still be out there) the eye of the Trilobite. Did you know there are ten very different eye styles that had to have "evolved" separately? Did you know there are at least four distinct sources for the life source of creation? We know that plants get energy from the sun and most animals then eat plants and other animals but there are also two distinct types of ecosystems that we have found under the ocean that do not depend on sunlight.

radar said...

This means that the impossible defiance of the Law of Abiogenesis had to be have happened four different times. That the remarkable workings of eyes had to have "evolved" in ten different ways. Not to mention the problem of chirality and the superb and unthinkable process of photosynthesis.

Darwinists believe in magic. Everything came from nothing. Life appeared with no cause. Remarkably complex mechanisms such as the motility methods used by some bacteria are being studied by microengineers and you guys think these things just happened? Then you make fun of me. Enjoy life as Harry Potter!

Jon Woolf said...

"Lucy" is a lie? Pakicetus is a lie? Do tell...

creeper said...

It never ceases to amaze me how many evasions, untruths and outright lies you manage to pack into so few words... I believe this is what is also known as the "Gish gallop": avoid digging into any one subject in detail, since that is a losing proposition for YEC, and instead throw out a bunch of unsubstantiated garbage. By the time anyone has time to respond to that, the "discussion" will already have moved on.

"Good old Tik means nothing, it is simply a fully-formed animal like all other animals found in the fossil record and in life today."

In that case, it seems you missed the point of the Tiktaalik prediction entirely, despite the educational link on the subject that I provided earlier. It is not "simply a fully-formed animal" though of course it is that too, but the intermediate between the form before and the form after it in the fossil record, which was predicted to have existed in the layer between them.

Now, according to the flood model, as you keep reminding us, fossils are “sorted” by some mysterious, ill-defined and undemonstrated mechanism that just so happens to sort both plant and animal fossils in exactly the way one would expect them to be arranged according to the theory of evolution.

But according to the flood model, one would not expect to be able to say: this layer of rock dated X features fossils of type A, this layer of rock dated Z features fossils of type C. Since we would like to find the intermediate fossil B, we should look in intermediate rock layer Y.

One could perhaps make such predictions according to the flood model if an alternate mechanism for the placing of fossils had actually been proposed – but there is no such alternate explanation that matches up to reality. None.

But according to modern dating methods and the theory of evolution, it was possible to make such a prediction. And when they looked in rocks dated to that particular time, they found that particular fossil.

According to the flood model, this should have been impossible; according to the theory of evolution and modern dating techniques, it's what you would expect to find. And since it was found, this is a confirmation of the latter and a refutation of the former.

You can evade all you want, but that is what Tiktaalik is all about.

Given that you mention that “Tik means nothing, it is simply a fully-formed animal”, I take it your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution has saddled you with a rather unfortunate misunderstanding of transitional forms. You seem to think they have to have half-formed wings and stuff like that, right?

Well that's exactly what the theory of evolution wouldn’t predict.

"I can predict that if you start digging around in the shales and limestones of Southern Indiana you will find trilobites and clams and ferns and all sorts of stuff."

Yes you can - and they will be consistently of the age of the rock you find them in. You won't find modern animals or plants mixed in with them.

But of course this has nothing to do with Tiktaalik either...

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Evolutionists are like mystics, predicting various things and only counting the rare occasions when they are right."

Unsubstantiated nonsense, of course.

If a scientists makes a prediction that is wrong (and not just inconclusive), then the theory in question is amended or discarded. Or in cases of deception or honest mistakes, the deception is exposed or the mistake is corrected/retracted. (By scientists, incidentally.)

"Let's see...Ida, Pakicetus, Lucy, Nebraska Man, Haeckel embroyo chart, horse evolution chart, the invention of prokaryotes as unique organisms so that their failure to evolve is ignored... Darwinists lie continually and deceive continually."

Let's see, another Gish gallop... okay, Ida, Pakicetus and Lucy are not even close to being lies or misrepresentations, so lumping them in here is a lie or misrepresentation unto itself – on your part.

Nebraska Man was not a deliberate fraud, as far as I'm aware. It was a misidentification that was later retracted in a scientific journal.

Some discussion about Haeckel’s embryo chart here. Again, no ongoing lie or deception. As for Haeckel’s embryo charts still being in textbooks (or being there until recently - I know you didn't explicitly say this while rattling off your little list, but I'm guessing that's where you were going with that), there is this:

”A recent survey of 36 biology textbooks, dating from 1980 to the present and covering high school biology, college introductory biology, advanced college biology, and developmental biology books, found that only 8 of these textbooks mentioned Haeckel or the biogenetic law. Two of these 8 were creationist/ID books (Of Pandas and People, and Biology for Christian Schools from Bob Jones University Press). Of the 6 mainstream textbooks that mentioned Haeckel or the biogenetic law, two are advanced college-level books. In all cases where Haeckel is mentioned (except for the creationist/ID books), the text discussion does not reproduce Haeckel's mistakes.”

And another interesting discussion of Haeckel’s embryo charts being included in textbooks is here.

Horse evolution chart – you previously had a go at this here, but it seems your beef with it was that some of the species on the chart were alive at the same time. Your complaint here constitutes more an embarrassing admission of ignorance on your part than an actual complaint about evolution. Yes, evolution is not linear nor teleological, it branches all over the place, and it is entirely possible for a species and its ancestral species to be kicking around at the same time. The chart itself is a simplified presentation, but how exactly do you think it constitutes a lie?

Now what’s this about “the invention of prokaryotes bla bla”? Failure to evolve? Invention as unique organisms? Could you expand on your thinking here?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Whoa, what an embarrassing post this one turned out to be, hey Radar? I expect it to be aggressively buried after a few days of furious cut-and-paste posting. Notice we've already got more copypasta (thanks for the new word, Anonymous) chucked up to attempt to minimize Radar's embarrassment.

Oh and Radar, your last two posts just add insult to that aforementioned embarrassment. I mean, you look like such a dummy posting stuff like this.

"Darwinists believe in magic. Everything came from nothing. Life appeared with no cause. Remarkably complex mechanisms such as the motility methods used by some bacteria are being studied by microengineers and you guys think these things just happened? Then you make fun of me. Enjoy life as Harry Potter!"

I suppose this is more of your "non-angry" musings? Protip: When debating, it's best not to use arguments that directly highlight weaknesses in your very own position. "Magic", "Fairy Tales" and "Harry Potter" references from a guy that believes in an invisible sky daddy? You just can't be serious. Just to illustrate my point Radar, tell me, where do you figure your christian "god" came from in the first place? Because, man, you better have an answer, and I sure hope he came from "something", otherwise you've got the very same "problem" you highlight above for those supposed "darwinists".

Finally, thanks John for your great comments and for the link to your essay. Good stuff. Non geologist here, so I'm working my way through it at the moment. I suspect I'll be a bit smarter by the time I'm done. Although that said, my guess is that like with everything else, Radar will simply run away and hide from any questions you post to him, especially where the answers don't fit into his narrow little YEC worldview. That said, if you have time (because you obviously have the acumen) please comment on some of Radar's assertions on this topic. His official position will be that you don't know what you're talking about and he does, so I hope you'll stick around for a little while to help combat the giant troll post that is this blog. Honestly though, like with creeper's post's, for me it's just always good times, watching an obnoxious bully like Radar being fed some crow by someone that knows what they're talking about.

- Canucklehead

creeper said...

"Scientific method "proved" that life cannot come from non-life and that kinds produce after their kind."

1. Scientific method "proved" nothing of the kind. Re. life coming from non-life, you're thinking of the Law of Biogenesis, which was not a "Law" like, say, Boyle's Law. It merely stated that maggots in meat or mice in the pantry didn't generate spontaneously - which happens to be correct, but has nothing to do with abiogenesis as such.

2. How did the scientific method prove that kinds produce after their kind?

"But Darwinist ignore the scientific method and invent fairy tales to explain life."

Um, no, they don't ignore the scientific method, they use it all the time.

"One of the most complex eyes in all of life was (or perhaps is, they may still be out there) the eye of the Trilobite. Did you know there are ten very different eye styles that had to have "evolved" separately? Did you know there are at least four distinct sources for the life source of creation? We know that plants get energy from the sun and most animals then eat plants and other animals but there are also two distinct types of ecosystems that we have found under the ocean that do not depend on sunlight."

Was this supposed to be an argument against the theory of evolution?

If so, how?

”This means that the impossible defiance of the Law of Abiogenesis had to be have happened four different times.”

1. There is no “Law of Abiogenesis”, and there never was. This has been pointed out to you before, so your repeating it now either means you’re being obtuse (deliberately or otherwise) or you’re being blatantly dishonest. Perhaps you’re confusing it with the “Law of Biogenesis” (also not a scientific law, as it happens).

And that means there is also no “impossible defiance of the Law of Abiogenesis”. That’s just something you made up (or fell for, whatever).

2. Abiogenesis itself only needed to have happened once, not four times.

”That the remarkable workings of eyes had to have "evolved" in ten different ways.”

So?

”Not to mention the problem of chirality and the superb and unthinkable process of photosynthesis.”

Your Gish gallop is well under way now. Run, Radar, run!

Problem of chirality? Even creationists have given up on this talking point.

”Darwinists believe in magic. Everything came from nothing. Life appeared with no cause. Remarkably complex mechanisms such as the motility methods used by some bacteria are being studied by microengineers and you guys think these things just happened? Then you make fun of me. Enjoy life as Harry Potter!”

Talk about the Potter calling the kettle black... :-) God waved his magic wand and just made it happen, that's magic thinking. Positing natural mechanisms, be it for abiogenesis or evolution, is the exact opposite. A clear case of projection on your part.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Yeoman's work creeper, Yeoman's work.

I love reading your clear headed and sharp refutations of Radar's "stuff" but, I have to admit, I can't believe you go back to 2006 on this blog (and probably even farther than that). Can't remember when I first posted but I guess it would be a few years ago now, as well.

Anyway, and I know I sound like a bit of a stalker here, but thanks for continuing to post here creeper. It's just too bad that "Dan S." and "F" are no longer around to help you with the heavy lifting, like when Radar gets on one of those Gish Gallops of his (another new one, thanks for that too).

- Canucklehead

radar said...

The picture I posted is not from that site you guys sent me. Lots of people can go to and take pictures of that particular formation. If I got the picture from Ian West his logo would be displayed top right. The angle is not even exactly the same.

Piling layers of BS and throwing the BS at me will not make you right, simply loud.

So what is the one thing you want to discuss? Chirality? You think Darwinists have an answer for that?

Creeper, you are well indoctrinated but you fail to stay on point because if we stay on point you will eventually come to that inexplicable moment when you have no first cause or first causer. So go ahead and teach us all about Chirality and how Darwinists have "solved" the problem, I am all ears.

radar said...

Or maybe you really think you can win at rock layers? Explain to me why, at best, 0.4% of the rock layers observed on earth fit the standard geological column taught in classrooms. How is it that interbedding and crossbedding and polystrates and megabreccias are a common part of the rock record. Have you no clue about hydrological studies of flood actions and layering?

A quote from an expert: Alan V. Jopling, Dept. of Geology, Harvard; "it is reasonable to postulate a very rapid rate of deposition; that is a single lamina would probably be deposited in a period of seconds or minutes rather than in a period of hours. ...There is factual evidence from both field observation and experiment that laminae composed of bed material are commonly deposited by current action within a period of seconds or minutes."

radar said...

PRINCIPLES OF
STRATIGRAPHY>, p. 128."In the Coal Measures of Nova
Scotia, for example, the stumps and trunks of many trees are preserved standing
upright as they grew, clearly having been buried before they had time to fall or rot
away. Here sediment certainly accumulated to a depth of many feet within a few years.
ln other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the
sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most. Abundant fossil shells
likewise indicate rapid burial, for if shells are long exposed on the sea floor they suffer
abrasion or corrosion and are overgrown by sessile organisms or perforated by boring
animals. At the rate of deposition postulated by Schuchert, 1000 years, more or less,
would have been required to bury a shell 5 inches in diameter. With very local
exceptions fossil shells show no evidence of such long exposure."

radar said...

TEMPORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RIPPLE MARKS , EDWIN D. MCKEE, "The chief
significance of ripple lamination in the geologic record is that it is an indicator of
environments involving large and rapid sand accumulation; areas where addition of
new sand normally is at a slow rate have little chance of developing into superimposed
ripple lamination; In contrast, areas in which sand accumulates periodically but
rapidly, as in river flood plains were sand laden waters of strong floods suddenly lose
velocity are very favorable for building up ripple laminated deposits."
Primary
Sedimentary Structures and Their Hydrodynamic Interpretation,< Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists>, p.107.

radar said...

I could go on and on but the fact is that rock layering that represented long time would have many features that are not present. The Grand Canyon is a testament to one massive hydrological event that laid down layer after layer of sedimentary laminae. Then sometime during the 300 or so post-flood years an accumulation of melting glacial and rainwaters broke through and a massive flood carved the still-soft layers of sediment into the immense canyon we see today.

You deep timers are living in a dream world. It is NOT true that, given enough time, anything can happen. You are now grasping at straws postulating thousands of local catastrophes as producing the layers of sediments even when some formations cross continents and oceans?

I am just thankful that I get better questions and comments in my classes than most of these. Frankly creeper you sound like a kid trying to come up with excuses for why you didn't do your homework. The same old stuff over and over.

radar said...

Now for two extraordinary statements:

"1. Science is not based on a "Darwinist Paradigm", but on the scientific method, as you well know.

Odd thing, that. Newton and Mendel and Linnaeus and in fact the majority of great scientists pre-Darwin were, if not Christians, certainly Theists and Deists. The scientific method does not exclude God, that is an assumption incorrectly added by you.

2. Science is not "encumbered with the error of thinking that there is no possiblity of a Creator God". Science doesn't reject God, but - seeing as there is no natural evidence of God's existence - simply can't include God in." You simply substitute "Chance" and "Time" into the God slot and carry on blithely. Since all life depends on an intricate blueprint that carries information, a logical mind would assume that a Designer provided the information and made the design. You think blueprints just appear out of nowhere? How do you not see the logical disconnect?

creeper said...

"The picture I posted is not from that site you guys sent me. Lots of people can go to and take pictures of that particular formation. If I got the picture from Ian West his logo would be displayed top right. The angle is not even exactly the same.

Piling layers of BS and throwing the BS at me will not make you right, simply loud. "


You posted this comment on the wrong post, maybe that's why you're confused.

The simple fact is that it is the same picture.

Here is Radar's picture.

Here is the picture Jon found.

Same angle, same text, same font. The hues are slightly different, so Radar probably got this from some intermediate source.

But a logo that should have been there, a different angle. Sorry Radar, you got it wrong.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Odd thing, that. Newton and Mendel and Linnaeus and in fact the majority of great scientists pre-Darwin were, if not Christians, certainly Theists and Deists. The scientific method does not exclude God, that is an assumption incorrectly added by you."

Good grief, how many times have we been over this nonsense?

Yep, they were Christians. So are many scientists today. Does that mean they drag the supernatural into their work as an explanation? Nope. They don't now, and they didn't then.

They may have thought that ultimately it was all God's doing, but that didn't affect the actual methods they used. Or can you think of any supernatural explanations that Newton and Mendel and Linnaeus dragged into their work?

As for "The scientific method does not exclude God, that is an assumption incorrectly added by you.", I didn't say the scientific method excludes God, nor did I make such an assumption. I actually said more or less the opposite: "Science doesn't reject God."

It would be more accurate to say: "The scientific method does not include God, that is an assumption incorrectly added by you." - with the "you" being you, Radar of course. Science is neutral on God, which is why scientists of all faiths etc. can work together.

How would you go about including God and the Bible in science any way? What criteria would you use to determine which deities and creation myths are "correct"?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Science is not "encumbered with the error of thinking that there is no possiblity of a Creator God". Science doesn't reject God, but - seeing as there is no natural evidence of God's existence - simply can't include God in." You simply substitute "Chance" and "Time" into the God slot and carry on blithely. Since all life depends on an intricate blueprint that carries information, a logical mind would assume that a Designer provided the information and made the design. You think blueprints just appear out of nowhere? How do you not see the logical disconnect?"

"Chance" and "time" (hardly the only elements involved...) are things that we can actually observe/perceive, unlike God. So there's a reason we can use them.

As for these blueprints you're talking about, there is an entirely plausible theory that explains how simple life forms can become more complex life forms - in other words, how information is added to the "blueprint": it's called the theory of evolution by natural selection.

How the ball got started - i.e. abiogenesis - is still a puzzle, and if it makes you feel better, by all means plug "God did it" in there.

If you think blueprints can't appear out of nowhere and you think that this is a logical disconnect, then obviously you must address the logical disconnect that's central to your "solution": where did God come from?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Creeper, you are well indoctrinated but you fail to stay on point because if we stay on point you will eventually come to that inexplicable moment when you have no first cause or first causer."

That makes no sense whatsoever. To get to the first cause we'd have to go off point quite a bit. Staying on point we could actually deal with you still not understanding that a catastrophe does not disprove uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism does not mean no catastrophes.

And then you tell me I say the same old stuff over and over. Yep, I feel like a broken record sometimes, because you just don't address a large number of issues that are problematic for the claims you make, and you hope they'll just go away.

"So go ahead and teach us all about Chirality and how Darwinists have "solved" the problem, I am all ears."

The link is just a few comments above this comment of yours.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I could go on and on but the fact is that rock layering that represented long time would have many features that are not present."

Such as?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I could go on and on but the fact is that rock layering that represented long time would have many features that are not present."

Such as?

-- creeper

creeper said...

Seeing as you declared this a fact, the answer somehow seems to elude you...

"I could go on and on but the fact is that rock layering that represented long time would have many features that are not present."

Such as?

-- creeper

radar said...

I came back to this old dinosaur of a post/notice that Darwinists were still defending Pakicetus and Haeckel back then (given up now) and thought Tiktaalik (sp) meant something when we know now that it doesn't but rather has more commonality with a snakehead fish than a salamander.

Also notice Woolf admitted that the hue and coloring of the photo he claimed I took from his site was not the same and that I, indeed, found it on an intermediate site.
I did begin putting specific credits on unsigned photos to avoid confusion in the future and be more journalistic in my approach.

Chirality is still a big headache for Darwinists. Biogenesis was proven using/seeking to produce microbes and the study of same led to Pasteurization.

All the rock layers at Grand Canyon have nice flat appearances rather than the bumpy, lumpy weathered appearance of old formations. Also they all have markings of water formation.

radar said...

Furthermore, a global flood would have entire rivers and seas within it with both fresh and saly water caused by the oddities of flood and flow behavior. Our oceans still have "rivers" of fresh water that extend far out into the seas and some water flows have special ecosystems, such as the Sargasso Sea, and the Gulf Stream has made Great Britain a temperate set of islands with much friendlier temperatures than their proximity to the North Pole should allow.

Studies of small floods give us clues, but thorough investigation by hydrologists have found that there could well have been flows of fresh water and salt water throughout the flood stage. One hint we have of this is the great numbers of fish with both fresh and saltwater varieties. In fact some fish can adjust to great varieties in brackishness, which is why sharks are now attacking far inland in Australia, as some sharks can control the ability to regulate their systems to the salinity of the water.

Also, it is pretty certain that the oceans of today are far more saline than that of the antediluvian world. A catastrophic worldwide flood with massive amounts of water released and stirring up and sorting all sorts of emissions from within the earth in addition to the runoff from the original dry land of the probable Pangea-like original landmass and the continuing runoff from land to sea now likely keeps salinity building very slightly over long periods of time. But the ocean dwellers are designed to handle small changes in salinity.