Allen Roy wrote:
>
> Actually, I just got back from Northern Arizona University with
"Diagenesis",
> ed. by McIlreath and Morrow and 'Petrology' by Raymond. So, far I have not
> found anything that cannot be interpreted with further research within a
> Creationary catastrophist hypothesis.
My question is how would you handle data that annihilates your catastrophist
hypothesis? Take this for example:
When we were testing atomic bombs after World War II, we picked a couple of
remote island sites in the Pacific Ocean. One of these was Eniwetok, a coral
reef in the Marshall Islands. The U. S. Geological Survey performed extensive
drilling so they would have a benchmark against which to measure the
effects of
an atomic detonation.
Coral results from the death of coral animals, a mineral record of the past is
built up as a progression of time. Coral cannot be deposited rapidly like
gravel beds. Minuscule animals are born into the world, live out their life
cycles, procreate and die, building layer upon layer of carcasses of
descendant
animals on top of their ancestors.
There are numerous limiting factors that inhibit the rate of coral growth.
Too
deep, it drowns, too shallow or if it is above sea level, all vertical growth
stops. In the last 100 years or so that we have studied these coral reefs,
they have been wearing down at the same rate of growth.
Rates of coral growth do vary a little as to species and location. E. F.
Hoffmeister did a study of Florida-Bahama coral that was published in a
Geological Society of America Bulletin in 1964. The fastest growth rates he
measured under optimum conditions was 10.7 millimeters in height per year, or
about two-fifths of an inch. Under the supervision of A. G. Mayer, the
Carnegie Institute did a study of coral growth in the Samoan Islands from 1917
to 1920, and determined that the rate of coral growth averaged 8 millimeters a
year, or less than one third of an inch.
So how deep did they drill at Eniwetok? From the top of the reef, they
drilled
through 4,610 feet of coral before reaching the volcanic sea mount at the
bottom. If the coral started growing at the day of creation and forged ahead
nonstop, for it to reach almost a mile in height would take 165,960 years!
But
how old is the volcano it rests on? Plus, there were times in the past when
the coral was above water as evidenced by concentrations of pollen in the
zones
of 2,440 feet to 2,510, 820 to 880 feet and 670 to 680 feet. How long did
Eniwetok tarry above sea level at least three times before it again was
submerged and could start growing again? How many times was the coral too
deep
to grow?
The entire report and the references can be found in Dan Wonderly's book,
God's
Time-Records in Ancient Sediments, pp. 23-47 still available from
Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute in Hatfield, PA.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_2592737==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Allen Roy wrote:
Actually, I just got back from
Northern Arizona University with "Diagenesis", ed. by McIlreath
and Morrow and 'Petrology' by Raymond. So, far I have not found
anything that cannot be interpreted with further research within a
Creationary catastrophist hypothesis.
My question is how would you handle data that annihilates
your catastrophist hypothesis? Take this for example:
When we were testing atomic bombs after World War II, we picked a couple
of remote island sites in the Pacific Ocean. One of these was
Eniwetok, a coral reef in the Marshall Islands. The U. S.
Geological Survey performed extensive drilling so they would have a
benchmark against which to measure the effects of an atomic
detonation.
Coral results from the death of coral animals, a mineral record of the
past is built up as a progression of time. Coral cannot be
deposited rapidly like gravel beds. Minuscule animals are born into
the world, live out their life cycles, procreate and die, building layer
upon layer of carcasses of descendant animals on top of their
ancestors.
There are numerous limiting factors that inhibit the rate of coral
growth. Too deep, it drowns, too shallow or if it is above sea
level, all vertical growth stops. In the last 100 years or so that
we have studied these coral reefs, they have been wearing down at the
same rate of growth.
Rates of coral growth do vary a little as to species and location.
E. F. Hoffmeister did a study of Florida-Bahama coral that was published
in a Geological Society of America Bulletin in 1964. The fastest
growth rates he measured under optimum conditions was 10.7 millimeters in
height per year, or about two-fifths of an inch. Under the
supervision of A. G. Mayer, the Carnegie Institute did a study of coral
growth in the Samoan Islands from 1917 to 1920, and determined that the
rate of coral growth averaged 8 millimeters a year, or less than one
third of an inch.
So how deep did they drill at Eniwetok? From the top of the reef,
they drilled through 4,610 feet of coral before reaching the volcanic sea
mount at the bottom. If the coral started growing at the day of
creation and forged ahead nonstop, for it to reach almost a mile in
height would take 165,960 years! But how old is the volcano it
rests on? Plus, there were times in the past when the coral was
above water as evidenced by concentrations of pollen in the zones of
2,440 feet to 2,510, 820 to 880 feet and 670 to 680 feet. How long
did Eniwetok tarry above sea level at least three times before it again
was submerged and could start growing again? How many times was the
coral too deep to grow?
The entire report and the references can be found in Dan Wonderly's book,
God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments, pp. 23-47 still available
from Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute in Hatfield, PA.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_2592737==_.ALT--