From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:52:37 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Dec15.191142.2201@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>
>Wayne Folta has responded to my flood FAQ by email, raising many points--
>some valid, some not, and some which I can't evaluate myself.  He has given
>me permission to post the email, but the whole thing is too long and diverse
>to post at once, so I'm excerpting parts.  This posting deals with arguments
>from Whitcomb and Morris.  I hope those who are familiar with those specific
>arguments will comment on them.
>
>I'll forego responding myself.  The quoted parts are from the flood FAQ.
>All of the non-quoted material which follows is from Wayne.
>----------------------
>
>>   How were mountains formed?  Many very tall mountains are composed of
>> 	sedimentary rocks.  If these were laid down during the flood, how
>> 	did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys
>> 	between them eroded away?
>
>As the land was raised up and the flood waters settled down into the ocean
>basins, mountains would be raised and great erosion would occur. (This
>reminds me of the Mt. St. Helens video that Gish and company have. It shows
>a valley with a little stream running through it. The valley's walls show
>millions of fine layers of deposits. Three hundred years from now, people
>might assume that the layers had been deposited over millions of years and
>that the stream had taken hundreds of thousands of years to carve out the
>valley. In fact, the deposits occured in three days, and the valley was
>blown out by a huge steam/mud flood in half a day.)
>

Mr. Isaak is proposing that the "settling of the flood waters" would raise
up the mountains.  I don't think that this theorem will work for the
Himalayan range.  I'm not a geologist, so any out there please feel free to
correct me where I stray.  Current plate techtonic theorey states that these
mountains are formed by the impact of the Indian subcontinent with the
Asian continent.  The plate upon which India sits is still moving northward
and, consequently, the Himalayas are growing taller.

The flood model proposed does not address certain key points that the plate
techtonic model does:

	- Why are such large mountains present in a "land locked" environ?
	- Why are these mountains continuing to grow?
	- Why is there not evidence of cataclysmic water erosion?

Now, I know that the flood model does not necessarily disprove the plate
techtonic model, but Mr. Isaak's proposal falls flat on this particular
range.  And, for that matter, falls flat on the Alps, Rockies, Sierras,
and most other ranges.

You have shown how one instance might be misconstrued.  Could you propose a
model for these other ranges that could be verified by field work?
-- 
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\  digi!jtisdel@uunet.uu.net
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\         jmtisdel@aol.com
   "I want to lie ship-wrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice."