Humans Caused Extinction of Australia�s Prehistoric Giant Animals

[mossrose]

I don't feel ashamed, just disappointed i'll never get to see them.

I'm more disappointed about the moas, though - just a few hundred years off.

I'm not disappointed that I never saw a dinosaur, or a passenger pigeon, or a dodo. There are far too many other things in life to be disappointed by than animals that once existed that are no longer.

[shunyadragon]

OK, and where do you get it from that the fine texture of loess cannot have been there during Flood?

Simply, the physics of sedimentation. I am a geomorphologist, and I have spent a good deal of my career studying how sediments form in different environments.

First, it is not only fine texture loess, but uniform stratifed clay, fine textured silt (loess) can only form by sorting in wind blown deposits of pure silt. There are no known possible flood deposits that can result in pure silt deposits nor varved clay deposits. Its pure Newtonian physics and not complicated.

[hansgeorg]

Simply, the physics of sedimentation. I am a geomorphologist, and I have spent a good deal of my career studying how sediments form in different environments.

First, it is not only fine texture loess, but uniform stratifed clay, fine textured silt (loess) can only form by sorting in wind blown deposits of pure silt. There are no known possible flood deposits that can result in pure silt deposits nor varved clay deposits. Its pure Newtonian physics and not complicated.

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

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

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

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

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

[shunyadragon]

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology...rds-03267.html

Now, 20,000 to 50,000 carbon years (and with or without U-Pb/Th-Pb carbon seems to be 50,000) is the carbon range for Flood, according to creationists.

OK, they used two dating methods to cross check their dating. 50,000 years is within the range of carbon dating. The limits of carbon dating is ~60,000 years. I would have preferred that they also use K-Ar dating. These sediments are continuous and uniform well below and above the sediment strata involved with no evidence of a flood environment.

[hansgeorg]

OK, they used two dating methods to cross check their dating.

The Uranium one being fairly owrthless.

50,000 years is within the range of carbon dating. I would have preferred that they also use K-Ar dating.

K-Ar is basically worthless, as witness Mount St Helen.

That means that 0.236 % of modern carbon is now possible to detect.

From Flood event you should have 54/55% of what the C14 content was back then, and it can well have varied enough for both 0.236 and 8.898 % modern carbon turning up as extremes (unless one prefers to say the items with 8.898 % now are post-Flood).

These sediments are continuous and uniform well below and above the sediment strata involved with no evidence of a flood environment.

Well that would show that the sediments is from a Flood both above and below the fossils.

[hansgeorg]

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

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

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

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

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

I also need to give credits to:

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

[shunyadragon]

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

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

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

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

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

I am very familiar with his work and conclusions. His experiments are valid for the formation of sandstone deposits in juxtaposition of different sizes of sand particles in coastal and riverine environments all over the world and throughout geologic history within a sandstone formation. Beyond this his experiments did not involve clay and silt size particles, and how loess and varved clay deposits form. Yes large silt deposits can form as wind blown silt in juxtaposition within on formation, but not in juxtaposition with sand deposits nor varved clay deposits. Varved clay deposits with seasonal varves cannot form in juxtaposition as as sands, and wind blown silt deposits can.

No, his research and experiments do not bring to question the whole geologic column, since the formations in the column involve limestone, shale, loess, sandstone, and by the way volcanic deposits. The research cited only deals with juxtaposition deposition in graded sandstone deposits, and not the superposition of 1,000s of feet of cyclic deposits vastely different environments that produce limestone, finely stratified shales, coal deposits, sandstones, and volcanic deposits. Juxtaposition deposition of sand and silt within a formation has long been known and well understood for many years and is not a controversial issue.

[mikewhitney]

Ut is becoming more apparent that humans are more responsible for the extinction of the large mammals.

It is obvious they died because they were obese.

[hansgeorg]

No, his research and experiments do not bring to question the whole geologic column, since the formations in the column involve limestone, shale, loess, sandstone, and by the way volcanic deposits. The research cited only deals with juxtaposition deposition in graded sandstone deposits, and not the superposition of 1,000s of feet of cyclic deposits vastely different environments that produce limestone, finely stratified shales, coal deposits, sandstones, and volcanic deposits

Does sandstone and does silt use different physics of deposition?

[hansgeorg]

It is obvious they died because they were obese.

Hmmmm ... didn't think of that one!

[shunyadragon]

Does sandstone and does silt use different physics of deposition?

All materials regardless of size and density respond to the same physics of deposition. The influence of gravity and the velocity of the water determine the different settling rates of different size and density of the particles. This is the reason sandstone deposits do not contain silt nor clay. The smallest, and less dense clay requires still waters to settle out at much slower rate over time, and that is why varved clay deposits only form in lakes and inland waters that are relatively calm. If the water has any velocity at all the clay will stay in suspension.

[rogue06]

OK, and where do you get it from that the fine texture of loess cannot have been there during Flood?

As Wikipedia explains:

Source: Loess

Source

© Copyright Original Source

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

[Sparko]

As Wikipedia explains:

Source: Loess

Source

© Copyright Original Source

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

What if the flood used dehydrated water?

[rogue06]

What if the flood used dehydrated water?

Dry water would explain why geologists cannot find evidence for it

[Bill the Cat]

And we did it without global warming!