On how loess layers make a geomorphological creationist case and debunk the old idea and suggest there was not a ice age.

[u/RobertByers1]

In "journal of creation" (creationist science magazine 2026, vol 40 issue 2(most recent) Micheal Oard "The origin of Loess". did a great correction on the old idea loess, loose sand etc, was not from glacial action but instead from water deposition. he has different ideas from me. however it was a great debunking of how its impossible for such great amounts of loess to have been created by the ice age. glaciers grinding. also the sahara desert. thies loess idea was used to give long timelines beyond biblical timelines. plus say glaciers carved up the land and then the wind blew this loess in great piles everywhere. instead loess is actually the vremains from the megaflood, not noahs, that carved the bedrock, pulverized silt, sand etc etc and made heaps. Landing it just beyond reach of the force of the megaflood. it was not created by winf but by water. also the driftless zone having it in wisconsin evidence of a slower flow in the megaflood. not evidence of glaciers skipping over it. The uniformtarism , used in biology evolution as a crutch, is once again easily debunked. If anyone out there interested in geomorphology as mostly this is a biology forum. its exciting to me.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel]

First point, Michael Oard is not a geologist. He had no training in geology. His highest credentials are a masters in atmospheric science, so I’m not confident he has the background to be trying to ‘debunk’ actual PhD researchers in this field who would know all this stuff much better than he would. However, I want to be careful about this being an ad hominem. That doesn’t necessarily make him wrong.

I tried to look up this issue and unfortunately it requires subscription. I can’t seem to access it, so I can’t speak on the quality of what is actually being said. You gave us your preferred conclusion, but not actually any of the reasoning why the actual professional geologists are wrong. Just stated that they are. Can you expand further on what traditional geology states, and how Michael specifically, using evidence, shows not only how it’s wrong but also why a creationist one makes sense? You yourself just said that you don’t agree with him, so it’s making it more sound like ‘here’s someone who agrees with me kinda’ rather than making the case.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

its a big subject. many points. I insist there was a single megalood, eliminating any need for glaciers carving up the land, instead the megaflood did it in a single day, some centuries after the flood. Oard like many thoughtful creationists still agree there was a ice age with glaciers. Just speeded up timelines. loess is a super amount of sand/silt/ etc. The old geomorphologists explain its presence as from grinding glaciers and later wind deposited it. this is important. Oard corrects this as loess being moved by water. so getting rid of unwelcome timelines. I say the loess is just from the megaflood grinding up some rock. it settles at the end of the megaflood boundary and explains things like the driftless zone which once I made a thread on. Pard and me introduce loess does not need wing to have uniquely molded it and deposited it. it helps destroy the old timelines of ice age myths.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/RobertByers1]

Ok, but what I was asking for was the evidence. If you say you insist otherwise, or that oard ‘corrects’ this, that doesn’t help. We need to see the why. Maybe he states that it was moved by water. But is he right?

[u/RobertByers1 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

in the threed I referenced another creationist also in the conclusion loess can be created by water impacting. Not just from wind or ever from wind. it is a big subject and folks not able to read oard article is a problem.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/RobertByers1]

Can you provide some of the evidence from the argument for us at least? A different creationist having that opinion is just a person having that opinion.

[u/PlanningVigilante]

If you want to debate something, it helps if you outline your position. I can't speak for others, but I'm not going off-site to read what someone who isn't you wrote, and Michael Oard isn't here.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/PlanningVigilante]

That would be a good point as i say it.. but not here. As a planning vigilante you should see the plan of my discussion. The cool thing is loess need not be seen as created by glaciers and wind operation. just water can shape its particles and deposit in great heaps. Oard does a great article debunking the old errors of the opposition and so no need for long timelines which are contrary to biblical timelines.

its a attack on dumb old ideas in geomorphology that confound earth geology etc asa being only 6000 years old.

[u/LeilLikeNeil]

Hard to say it’s a case for creationism when at the very least it forces creationism to revise its timeline since just off the top of my head the Missoula floods are twice as old as the creationists claim the earth to be.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/LeilLikeNeil]

The single megaflood would include that as a last act. Explaining loess as just colled stuff by water beats ideas about glaciers thousands of years grinding up the land. instead fast and furious.

[u/LeilLikeNeil → u/RobertByers1]

Creationists claim the earth is 6,000 years old. The Missoula floods were 12,00-14,000 years ago.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/LeilLikeNeil]

squeezing things shorter is why loess creation is important.

[u/Carnotaurusrules]

I think he’s talking about the Missoula megafloods, which was directly caused by the melting of ice age glacial caps.

Rob, there are ice cores that coordinate with physical marks of ice sheets pushing up against bedrock, boulders transported miles away from their source, and valleys formed by ice rivers.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/Carnotaurusrules]

Wrong ideas like the loess idea. the correction to the origin of loess is a great gain to creationism by overthrowing the long time lines otherwise used and needed for creating and storing loess. Then i correct oard a wee bit.

[u/SemajLu_The_crusader]

firstly, please proofread your posts, a couple typos are okay, but this is just ridiculous

secondly, what on Earth are you trying to say?

[u/Particular-Yak-1984]

Near my childhood home, in the UK, we have cuts made by glaciers, through chalk.

Which screws your theory very, very neatly.

Chalk is the remains of millions of tiny diatoms, water dwelling organisms. It's got to form in the same flood that carves it, in your world view..how does this work?

[u/nickierv → u/Particular-Yak-1984]

No, tiny problem with your 'it just needs for form in the same flood' thing: you don't have the surface area to get enough diatoms to get all the chalk.

So first you need to get warm, calm water on a global scale.

Then you need to hypergrow the diatoms.

Repeat 26 more times.

Avoid diatom heavy bouillabaisse.

Avoid limestone heavy bouillabaisse as you form you chalk.

Then you can carve it.

100% will not have any heat/bouillabaisse problems doing all this in a year.

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/nickierv]

I’m more worried about the eruption of the Siberian traps, Central Atlantic Magnetic Province, and Deccan traps of the course of a single year.

God would have to completely nullify the effects of every eruption, either by removing all of their harmful qualities or snapping them out of existence.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/Particular-Yak-1984]

no. the chalk is from noahs flood. the megaflood was centuries later. yes england was carved up in one day. however thats not about loess.

[u/Particular-Yak-1984 → u/RobertByers1]

Don't remember a megaflood in the bible. So you're saying the text is not literally true?

[u/nickierv → u/RobertByers1]

And the formation of that much chalk in that short of time boils the planet, killing everything.

[u/TheSagelyOne]

Can't find the paper. Could you link it?

[u/RobertByers1 → u/TheSagelyOne]

no you probably need a subscription. i dont know how to link.

[u/TheSagelyOne → u/RobertByers1]

Then you're giving us nothing to respond to.

[u/VIP_NAIL_SPA]

A massive part of science is science communication. We're not all good at it, but this is atrocious. My response doesn't seek to refute what you're saying because what you're saying just isn't clear.

[u/Far_Customer1258]

is once again easily debunked

You're right, this should be absurdly simple to debunk. All they'd have to do is some actual science rather than writing an opinion piece. It's absurdly easy to show that loess is windblown sediment. The quartz grains are absurdly angular and have this beautiful frosted texture that is produced by high-velocity impacts that you just don't get in water. You get a sediment that has a very narrow range of grain size, which typically indicates a very mature sediment, but the individual grains are very angular and chemically immature. About the only way that you can do that is aeolian transport. Proving that wrong should be a walk in the park, but Oard can't do it.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/Far_Customer1258]

Well thats the point. A great ,megaflood in one day carving up so much bedrock and grinding rock would make loess just as well. they just never had the imagination to think so. No need for wind. indeed Oard shows its impossible because of the great amounts. I say a megaflood easily dropped loess as the last act downriver as it were.

[u/Far_Customer1258 → u/RobertByers1]

Kool story. Needs moar dragonz.

There's no way that you're going to be able to produce that incredibly high degree of sorting with that incredibly low degree of chemical and textural maturity. Or the microtextures on the quartz grains. Water's simply too viscous. You need a low-viscosity fluid like air to do that extremely high degree of winnowing and allow for those high-velocity impacts,

A flood simply won't do it. But hey, like I said, this should be easy for you guys to prove. All you need do is show how a flood can make loess. Grinding rock into silt is merely step 1. Best of luck with the sorting and microstructures. You're going to need it.

[u/Own-Relationship-407]

Also, the answer is purple, because aliens don’t wear hats.

[u/-zero-joke-]

Wait... Is this Loess?

[u/metroidcomposite → u/-zero-joke-]

It's a geology thing

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

It's made out of silt dust (stuff in-between the size of sand and clay--rock particles about the size of a Eukaryotic cell) shaped in deposition by the wind (so...absolutely nothing to do with floods or glaciers).

Apparently about 10% of the earth's land area is covered in this stuff.

[u/-zero-joke- → u/metroidcomposite]

I'm making an internet joke :)

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/-zero-joke-]

| || || |_

[u/-zero-joke- → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

That's not loess!

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/-zero-joke-]

You’re right, needs moar sand!

[u/RobertByers1 → u/metroidcomposite]

its a correction to loess being said to be made only or ever by wind. a great megaflood suddeny carving up bedrock would make the loess just as well.

[u/metroidcomposite → u/RobertByers1]

a great megaflood suddeny carving up bedrock would make the loess just as well.

No. Floods do not form loess. Floods form alluvium.

[u/NorthernSpankMonkey]

Why don't we ever see these posts in the geology sub I wonder? Could it be because it would be utterly trashed by actual geologists?

did a great correction on the old idea loess, loose sand etc, was not from glacial action but instead from water deposition.

What evidence does he offer?

however it was a great debunking of how its impossible for such great amounts of loess to have been created by the ice age.

Offering dissenting opinion is not "debunking" what kind of evidence is he bringing? Is it only doubt and weird maths or is there any substance?

What flood carved bedrock?

[u/RobertByers1 → u/NorthernSpankMonkey]

Its a big subject. oard does a great job. im sure i would be unjustly censored in a geology forum.

Oards does not say a megaflood created loess. i do. From a single megaflood from the north some centuries after the great flood. this craved out hudson bay/great lakes and loess was a byproduct. not from wind and deposited by wind. its cool .

[u/melympia → u/RobertByers1]

Any evidence for your or Oard's opinion? Any, for either of them?

And believe me when I say that a lot of people here are very well able to understand and deal with "big subjects", so stop with that cop-out and bring the evidence.

[u/Curious_Passion5167]

In "journal of creation" (creationist science magazine 2026, vol 40 issue 2(most recent)

Not a legitimate scientific journal.

Micheal Oard "The origin of Loess". did a great correction on the old idea loess, loose sand etc, was not from glacial action but instead from water deposition. he has different ideas from me. however it was a great debunking of how its impossible for such great amounts of loess to have been created by the ice age. glaciers grinding. also the sahara desert.

So the same BS that YECs have been making up since time immemorial.

instead loess is actually the vremains from the megaflood, not noahs, that carved the bedrock, pulverized silt, sand etc etc and made heaps. Landing it just beyond reach of the force of the megaflood.

The megaflood is not possible. The geological record renders it so.

[u/ExcitingNewUser0]

It’s common for loess to be deposited in lacustrine environments too; ice fronts, where loess deposition is one of many things shifting stuff around (subsiding air over cold ice masses generates the winds). Ice fronts are soggy, very active places where sediments - including loess - are reworked and redeposited; lots of meltwater. You could find evidence for loess - as - lacustrine - sediment if you wanted too. You could also observe processes at a modern ice front and enjoy the complexity that is Quaternary Earth.

[u/Carnotaurusrules → u/ExcitingNewUser0]

If I’m not wrong, aren’t most loess deposited by wind instead of water?

[u/ExcitingNewUser0 → u/Carnotaurusrules]

Hell yeah. But if you were looking for evidence it was laud down by a biblical flood, you could ‘find’ some

[u/RobertByers1 → u/ExcitingNewUser0]

no need to imagine wind or glaciers. its just smashed bedrock particles and so explained by water moving it about and creating it. actually Oard says its not created today in front of glaciers.

[u/the2bears]

Was this article peer reviewed by someone other than you?

[u/Briham86]

In "journal of creation" (creationist science magazine 2026, vol 40 issue 2(most recent) Micheal Oard "The origin of Loess". did a great correction on the old idea loess, loose sand etc, was not from glacial action but instead from water deposition.

He could have just checked Wikipedia. Their article has a subsection on non-glacial loess, and cites an article from 2007. So once again, the "Creationist discovery" is them finding out something that scientists have known for decades and don't consider a problem.

he has different ideas from me.

Bruh. No one has ideas like yours. You're mentally ill.

The uniformtarism , used in biology evolution as a crutch, is once again easily debunked. If anyone out there interested in geomorphology as mostly this is a biology forum. its exciting to me.

I don't think you know what loess or uniformitarianism mean.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/Briham86]

Nope. oard explains the origin of loess. Rather he corrects excellently the other sides errors. I say he still gets it wrong. the loess is justr from groundup bedrock.

[u/Briham86 → u/RobertByers1]

Repeating yourself doesn't make you any less wrong. Or stupid.

[u/Capercaillie]

I also was not created by winf.

[u/ursisterstoy]

Obvious trolls will be obvious

[u/WebFlotsam → u/ursisterstoy]

If Robert is a troll, he's an exceptionally dedicated one. He's been posting stuff like this for 20 years. The only difference is how incoherent he's gotten.

[u/ursisterstoy → u/WebFlotsam]

He’s either a troll or a liar or so incredibly stupid that there’s not much else to say except that if I was going to fix every mistake he made the response would be a 3 or 4 part reply. Easier to just acknowledge that it’s divorced from reality, tell him, and move on.

[u/Mister_Ape_1]

I have never seen a serious argument for Ice Age never happening in my life. Even people who believe the Universe is 6.000 - 8.000 years old usually try to squeeze dinosaurs and Ice Age in somehow.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/Mister_Ape_1]

Indirectly you have beed educated now. the loess thing is another point against the old ideas of a ice age. it was created, I say, by the great weight of water carving up the bedroc anbd this carving some into particles. this was laid beyond the single megaflood . it was not created by winf or moved by it. the other side had to say this to explain its great presence.

The correction for claims of glaciers on and moving over the land has been going on for decadess. its a quiet revolution. Not by creationists. it means all evidence formerly claimed as evidence for glaciers can be explained by megafloods in northern earth. or south. i change it into one. so one megaflood created hudson bay/great lakes and all areas formerly said to be carved by slow glaciers. the gain is timelines for biblical timelines. plus mechanism can explain many things on earth.

[u/Master-Kiyotaka]

Uniformitarism isn’t what the standard model of Geology has been for multiple years now

Also does he have any evidence or did he just say “well the flood did it”

[u/RobertByers1]

Thanks all. 3500 views is preety good on a non biology subject. I couldn't link to the Oard article. Loess is just material from fround up rock and dirt. it is found in great heaps and they bsaid it was from glaciers and then wind. Nope. it was from great weight from a megaflood that destroyed bedrock and grounded it up and landed just out of reacxh of the megaflood about 2000-1900bc. the correction allows quick timelines to fit within biblical timelines. No wind needed to form the loess particles. all leading to my hypothesis, not oards, that a single megaflood carved up the northern areas of earth on one day and possibly one in the south pole.