>But if such a large portion of the geologic column is post flood (i.e.
>thousands of feet) how long did it take that sediment to be deposited? When
>was the flood in your view? I couldn't see the flood being anytime within
>the past 80 million years under the view that 10,000 feet was post flood
>deposition.
How long is a good question. The slower/faster the sedimetation rate, the
longer /shorter the time. We can't see what is out of our experience, but
that's the challenge -- to "read" the record, with the right "reading
glasses". If the flood was, as Genesis 7-8 describes it, a worldwide
water catastrophe, how fast would you expect sedimentation rates to drop to
present levels?
I could show that the 30,000 feet of sediment at the mouth of
>the Mississippi must also be post flood yet from the quantity of sediment
>load is tripled over what we now see, the Mississippi River would take 30
>million years to fill up that much sediment.
The Mississippi River Valley is much wider than the present meanders. This
reminds me of the small-meander-in-a-wide-valley which formed practically
overnight by Mount Saint Helens (March 19, 1982, when a large volume of
snow melted by steam gushed down carrying ash from the summit), which
necessitated re-evaluation of the "gradual widening" hypothesis for river
valley formation, and required what I call a "gush and trickle" scenario
for formation of the observed rapidly-formed wide valley and narrow
meander.
The Mississippi drainage is on a much larger scale. But why assume that
its flow rate, and consequent delta deposition rate, has always been about
as today? Surely both were greater in the pluvial period, and would have
been *much* greater if the whole mid-continent drained throuh it rapidly
(i.e., in a few years/decades) at the end of the flood. Notice the pattern
of K- Paleocene- Eocene- Oligo- Mio- Plio- Pleist sediments on a geological
map of North America.
Karen