Baumann took on the Flood geologists

Noah's Flood and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (feat. Steven Baumann) - Evolution Exposed Exposed
Paulogia | 3.XI.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crBJCiZjtkI

I

3:20 "and invent terms we as geologists don't use"

It would seem reasonable that an alternative paradigm would use an alternative terminology to describe whatever the difference is about?

Or did Flood Geologists ever claim to simply represent main stream old age geology?

II

6:09 What if the three times thicker sediment from pre-Cambrian with only stromatolites is the pre-Flood sea bottom? Btw, considering that GC is marine fauna, mainly, it would have been sea, not land in the moments just before the Flood.

6:32 "a km or so thick limestone unit precipitated from sea water in a matter of 100 days ..."

• we don't know how much it was squeezed into shorter and thicker after the Flood
• sea water is not a real thing before the Flood, salinity has been rising since
• do you get the impression all creationists consider chalk was precipitated from solution in the water?

What was deposited was arguably tons of shrimps and clams, with less thick and longer spread that was squeezed to vertical after the Flood, and it turned to limestone by chemical processes occurring after the Flood.

6:48 Yeah, you mentioned salinity of oceans, meaning your experiment of six centimetres per year (you don't mention from how high sea water) in a lab was not the correct experiment to refer to about it ... basics of argument : know what you are trying to argue against; basics in Flood geology : salinity rose in seas drastically after the Flood.

Temperatures would also have been different from your experiment, with the vertical weight of overall Flood deposits and the squeeze to more verticality contributing to raising temperatures.

III

10:13 What if palaeomagnetism is a less good clue to earlier positions than claimed?

11:22 And yes, I think the mainstream of YEC is wrong to accept Pangaea as a fact.

I think the pre-Flood single continent had four corners, a Riemann rectangle about like the one you get between Alaska, Cape Horn, Sydney and Kamtchatka (the modern version of four corners), with land mostly for at least North Atlantic, an Atlantis that sank about the time of Babel.

This continent would have had many inland seas, or big lakes, even supposing whales in the pre-Flood world could have lived in lake water, but after what I said of salinity, that should actually be a corrollary, yes, they could, there was not yet what we call sea water. As well as four major rivers, parts of the rivers beds are preserved as 1) White Nile-Congo-Amazonas, 2) Blue Nile-Ganges-Bramaputra, 3) Euphrates-(Black Sea)-Danube-Rhine-Thames-Liffey-St. Lawrence 4) Tigris-(Black Sea)-Don-Volga-Syr-Daria and Amu-Daria with Yang Tse Kiang. Now Euphrates and Tigris flow towards Persian gulf, Niles into the Mediterranean, back then the slant would have been reversed and they would have been flowing outward.

This outline of the pre-Flood continent disagrees with those of Pangaea, notably as to four corners corresponding to major outlets of major rivers.

I think this disagreement will be important for the answer to Baumann ...

IV

13:22 The evidence for catastrophic rifting would be indirect, as to evidence for the Flood and all the mud flows it involved.

Now catastrophic rifting is one young earth creationist specifically flood geologist model of how the Flood started.

It would not have left too many traces itself, since mostly covered by sediments from ensuing parts of the Flood.

In other words, it can not be proven and also not disproven - especially not by lack of direct evidence, since at least most places on earth such is not expected.

V

14:00 "you generate heat"

So, temperatures for "precipitation" if such of one km of chalk would have been different from your lab check with 6 cm from sea water?

Perhaps it would have set on a process of purifying chalk in what were previously piles of dead and buried shellfish from the Flood?

14:37 "the fact that there is no mechanism"

They do propose plates gliding apart and then colliding ... you seem to have concentrated on only the "colliding" part without bothering there was first a gliding apart?

14:58 "basic physics"

Before we get there, what about telling me where you get 2 m / s from?

Its involving Pangaea? If so, a fine revindication of my own model against the current main stream of YEC ... but I'm waiting to actually hear the source.

VI

16:45 I am not sure if your source says the tsunamis were one km high, or if you pretend they would have needed to be.

American mountains now c. 1 km high would have been far flatter back then.

God willing earth to remain together is also an option.

On this list of highest peaks, the elevations of all 100 would have been unknown pre-Flood:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_peaks_of_North_America

So also the prominence (I suppose that means elevation above surrounding elevation) of the first 27.

Before 17:06 "earth does not have the potential energy"

Earth doesn't now. The video probably refers to the theory saying valves of underground water provided the potential energy ...

VII

18:11 Yes, the video you are reviewing is representing one model among many, and so Ken Ham's answer is different from that presented by the video.

VIII

19:17 "starting with the conclusion"

Er, no. Starting one specific debate where you would like to prefer to put conclusions of that debate - like geology, palaeontology and so forth.

But it is itself a conclusion of Genesis:

• being the word of God
• being history

And the latter is at least arguable even without it becoming the word of God when hagiographer and prophet Moses includes its materials in one volume, as it was already history before that.

The real difference is whether it's putting science or history first that constitutes a "putting the cart before the horse".

IX

20:02 The criticism was not against the crater of Yucatán existing, but against an impact of that size wiping out parts of the fauna that far away.

Baumann's answer is "non causa pro causa" or in layman's terms "strawman".

20:14 "failed to notice"

Have they ever done so?

Baumann's continuing his strawman.

"to create all these crater impacts"

Well, did it happen millions of years apart, or did it happen in a short period?

Because if it happened in a short period, we basically have one model for starting catastrophic plate tectonics.

If it happened millions of years apart, you have the Yucatán crater standing alone to create a mass extinction 65 million years ago. Which was what the polemics actually was against.

X

20:48 "so fossils are not really my thing"

They are a bit of mine, though.

Where the video places the "dinosaur peninsula" in North America, I have one possible solution that we talk of a post-Flood dinosaur population, c. 50 - 100 years after the Flood, wiped out by muddy land slides. Why? Bc the carbon dates provided by samples which Armitage formerly could get dated are carbon dates more recent than of last known Neanderthal, that is more recent than 35 000 BC, when we find a man who had a Neanderthal mother ...

But if the main sequence of fossils is after all from the Flood and not mud slides after it, we can get a good map of the pre-Flood world by fossils. In Ankerschlag we find a pterosaur, so it would have been on land, on an island or on sea, but not too far from land or from islands. In Lienz and Nussdorf outside Vienna, you find whales, so it would have been inland seas or lakes. In Nussdorf you also find a seal, so it can not have been too far from land.

I think the premiss of "dinosaur peninsula" is skewed, if it was after all a pre-Flood dino population, this would reflect a dino habitat. There were other habitats of other creatures, dinos were not alone on earth.

21:48 I think they are speaking of both Morrisson and Hell Creek formations in combination.

XI

23:18 I think they are referring to hydrological sorting of a more drastic type than Mississippi 1993.

That there is hydrological sorting in physics is documented by flume experiments. It's just that the land slides you observe are not big enough to make it.

The flume experiments deal with grains of sand of different sizes and the water flow is sufficient for grains of sand ... in the Flood it would have been so for transporting and sorting bones. And in Mississippi 1993 we would have been closer to the flume than to the Flood.

23:39 "without a location"

They showed a location on the photo, right?

If they did not give the location, it may be they don't want their find to get confiscated from their research by Smithsonian.

No Uniformitarian has to deal with this threat of having their research totally confiscated.

XII

24:50 "arguments are not evidence in science, you can argue till your face falls off"

Well, that is why I ditch this approach to science. Arguments from material evidence to thesis are in fact proof, if made correctly. Like leaving no alternative explanations unrefuted and so on.

And Baumann's refutations are badly argued as he never goes into an appropriate scaling up of the processes we observe, but argues from small examples that the results would be the same from causes much bigger - except on one thing, namely where it suits him to do a scaling up of consequences of friction to pretend the Flood would have burned earth or ripped it apart.

On a somewhat different issue, I have seen a similar "ultra-catastrophic" scaling up a few years ago. One pretended, raising carbon 14 levels from those appropriate for 40 000 years carbon age at Flood to present level would have involved so much cosmic radiation, it would have "fried" all except invertebrated into nuclear contamination death. I did a check up, and I think one thing they got wrong (though they didn't state the details) was confusing overall back-ground radiation with the part from cosmos.

In Europe, most places, overall radiation is at 3.something milliSievert per year. Ten times that, you already have 30+ which is "danger zone". But no immediate kill. Well, the part from cosmos is just 0.34 milliSieverts at medium hight of inhabited earth, lower further down, higher higher up. Ten times that is just 3.4 milliSievert per year, which is not dangerous. But another fault would be presume to know milliSievert and factor of faster C14 production as co-functions. How they relate is as results, more complex than mathematical functions, of three different magnitudes, and I got a refusal on testing the variables that I thought might produce 10 times faster C14 build up - which is all I need at its fastest. The test could have been performed and wasn't, by one Ilya Usoskin:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html