Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

[Miles]

.




A bill to allow Christian beliefs to be taught in Arkansas classrooms easily passed the state House Wednesday. House Bill 1701 now heads to the Senate side for a vote.

The bill will allow kindergarten through 12th grade teachers to teach students about the Christian theory of creationism, which claims that a divine being conjured the universe and all things in it in six days. The bill specifies that creationism can be taught not only in religion and philosophy classes, but “as a theory of how the Earth came to exist.”

As with so many pieces of legislation churning out of the Arkansas Capitol this session, if HB 1701 passes, a quick court challenge on this blatant mixing of church and state is all but inevitable. The United States Supreme Court already considered this issue in 1987 and ruled in no uncertain terms that teaching creationism in public school classrooms is unconstitutional. But blatant unconstitutionality hasn’t dissuaded Arkansas lawmakers so far this session. One Senate bill that passed recently, for example, declared all federal gun laws null and void within our state’s borders, in clear opposition to the Supremacy Clause that says federal laws take precedence over state laws.

Rep. Mary Bentley (R-Perryville), sponsor of House Bill 1701 “TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW THE EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OPEN–ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS,” said she put forth the bill at the request of science teachers in her district.

“There are phenomena in our nature that evolution cannot explain,” Bentley said. She emphasized that science teachers may teach creationism under this bill, but they don’t have to.
source



Stupid beyond belief, but what's your opinion?

.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to brunumb in post #71]

EarthScienceguy would do well to read up on steric hindrance in order to appreciate the effects of particle size in chemistry.

Indeed ... pasting stuff from creationist websites usually does gets the fact very wrong. And we'd have a lot different chemistry here on Earth if atomic size had no bearing on chemical reactions or incorporation and bonding into 3D structures. I ended up an experimental spectroscopist because of an early interest in lasers, but got there through chemistry departments and don't recall ever being taught that "size doesn't matter."

[Diagoras]

[Replying to brunumb in post #71]

I’ll re-echo those sentiments. I did a double-take when I first read post #66 above, and thought my B.Sc Chemistry might need re-examining!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #70]

Bringing up these pseudoscience quacks like Brown and Humphreys and presenting their work as if it were to be taken seriously does not help your arguments (just the opposite). Don't you ever wonder why their creationist-supporting garbage is not published in actual scientific journals (easy answer).

Their theories are published in scientific journals. Just because you do not like them does not mean they are not peer-reviewed. And there is criticism of both theories in Creation cosmology circles. Just like there is criticism of the Big Bang theory, stellar evolutionary theory, and the universe from nothing theory, Multiverse theory. There is no consensus in modern cosmology. Even the nature of the speed of light is being seriously rethought.

What? Chemical reactions between atoms has a great deal to do with their outer electron structure which creates covalent and ionic bonds. And their size has a great deal to do with how they can fit into crystal lattices (or not). The statement above really does deserve a "wow ... this hurts my head" and effectively destroys any credibility in subsequent statements concerning chemistry.

Not in this case. Yes, I understand that reactivity is dependent on the shielding effect or the lack of a shielding effect of the electrons underneath the valance shell. So yes I did overstate my argument. In this case, the reactivity is dependent on whether Uranium is in an oxidizing environment or a reducing environment.

This is exactly what we would expect to see in a flood situation in which uranium and all of its daughter elements were being made by a z-pinch in the crust. The uranium would be picked up by the water and carried along until a barrier was reached and all of the organic matter and debris especially fine particles would be dropped when the speed of the water decreased because of the barrier.

Pure speculation, but also pure nonsense because (a) there is not nearly enough energy in the crust to create a z-pinch sufficient to create even a tiny fraction of the radioactive elements we observe on Earth (by orders of magnitude), and (b) there is no evidence of a global flood since humans have existed on this planet (which is far longer than creationists even think the universe has been around). Another head-hurting comment.

It suggests that most of Earth's water was on the surface at that time, during the Archean Eon between 2.5 and 4 billion years ago, with much less in the mantle. The planet's surface may have been virtually completely covered by water, with no landmasses at all.
https://earthsky.org/earth/ancient-eart ... 20at%20all.
https://astronomy.com/news/2020/03/anci ... y-dry-land
https://www.livescience.com/waterworld-earth.html

I believe there is plenty of evidence for the case that the Earth was at on point covered in water.

You know the one that tries to describe the earth was at one time a molten ball of liquid rock. This theory has many problems and one of the greatest being the observations of liquid water in some of the oldest rocks found on this planet.
And, as usual, you have no alternative theory that can't be shot full of holes (eg. creationism) with high school level science. Since you believe the universe is only about 6000 years old, presumably this is the age of the oldest rocks found on this planet. Or are you conveniently using a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth when it is convenient for an argument, then claiming elsewhere that it is impossible for the Earth to be this old?

You have not shot any holes in my argument. I have refuted all of your claims. Including your best argument radioactive dating. There is no reason why granite should be preferred over basalt. There is no reason to believe stellar evolutionary theory. The oldest rocks on the earth according to radioactive dating is 4.2 billion years.

Scientists have found the oldest known rocks on Earth. They are 4.28 billion years old, making them 250 million years more ancient than any previously discovered rocks. https://www.livescience.com/2896-oldest ... ed%20rocks.

There is evidence of liquid water 4.3 billion years ago according to your worldview.

This discovery supports the proposal by Harrison's group four years earlier that a heavy oxygen isotope signature in the Hadean zircons is evidence for liquid water at or near the Earth's surface by 4.3 billion years ago. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/ ... ears%20ago).

The above means that liquid water had already existed 4.3 billion years ago and we do not know how much longer before that it existed. According to your worldview.

Mineralogical evidence from zircons has shown that liquid water and an atmosphere must have existed 4.404 ± 0.008 billion years ago, very soon after the formation of Earth.[15][16][17][18] This presents somewhat of a paradox, as the cool early Earth hypothesis suggests temperatures were cold enough to freeze water between about 4.4 billion and 4.0 billion years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of ... ears%20ago.

So according to Stellar evolutionary theory, all the water on the Earth should have been frozen 4.4 billion years ago.

With regards to water for the flood.

Deep down
The latest work simulates this reaction under various temperatures and pressures typical of the upper mantle between 40 and 400 kilometres down. It backs up previous work by Japanese researchers who performed and reported the reaction itself in 2014.

“We set up a computer simulation very close to their experimental conditions and simulated the trajectory of the reaction,” says Tse.

But in a surprise twist, the simulation showed that the water forms within quartz but then can’t escape and so the pressure builds up.

“The hydrogen fluid diffuses through the quartz layer, but ends up forming water not at the surface, but in the bulk of the mineral,” says Tse. “We analysed the density and structure of the trapped water, and found that it is highly pressurised.”

According to the simulation, the pressure could reach as much as 200,000 atmospheres. “We observed the water to be at high pressure, which might lead to the possibility of induced earthquakes,” says Tse.

Quake trigger
The quakes could be triggered as the water finally escapes from the crystals. “However, further research is needed to quantify the amount of released water needed for triggering deep earthquakes,” says Tse.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... z6tRJQE75m

Now if we put this all together in your 4.5 billion year world view.

The earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago by accretion. Accretion would have caused all the water at the surface to evaporate. Once the earth cooled enough to start producing water in the mantle (the great deep). Then there was a worldwide flood during the Archean Eon. This still does not solve the faint sun paradox. But it does sound very familiar. Water coming up from deep inside the earth and a worldwide flood where could I have heard of that before?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #74]

Their theories are published in scientific journals.

They have published legitimate science papers in legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals, but not related to their creationism-supporting ideas. That stuff is published in creationism journals only, where the conclusion is given (by a bible account) and they try to create a scenario where these bible accounts are consistent with modern science. Since they aren't (Genesis creation account, Noahs' flood, etc.) they are never published in real science journals because they are not consistant with modern science.

There is no consensus in modern cosmology.

There is on many things, but of course not on problems that are still open research problems such as the nature of dark matter and dark energy, origin of the universe. As usual, you are cherry picking things to try and suggest that modern cosmology is a confused mess of disagreement on every aspect of it, and that creationism answers all questions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe there is plenty of evidence for the case that the Earth was at on point covered in water.

Not that was created by a global flood as described in Genesis, and certainly not 4,300 years ago! Things that may have happened billions of years ago, or things like a "snowball earth" hundreds of millions of years ago, are not even remotely close to the scenario described in the Genesis flood either in time frame, or in detail (eg. there were no doves or olive leaves, humans, wood to build an ark, etc. prior to the appearance of these things, obviously).

Not in this case. Yes, I understand that reactivity is dependent on the shielding effect or the lack of a shielding effect of the electrons underneath the valance shell.

What (again)? Where did you pull that from? Look at a periodic table and explain why sodium (Na) on the left side likes to combine with chlorine (Cl) on the right side? Na has an extra electron in its outer shell (1s2, 2s2, 2p6, 3s1) while Cl is short one (1s2, 2s2, 2p6, 3s2, 3p5). If they get together and Na transfers an electron to Cl (an ionic bond), both are happy (unlike how H and O bond in water, where the electrons are shared and you have a covalent bond). It is the outer shell electrons that do the bonding in most chemical structures. Shielding by inner shell electrons (eg. in the spherical s orbitals) can reduce the ionization energy of outer shell electrons (eg. in p orbitals), which reduces the nuclear "pull" on the outer shell electrons which can reduce the ionization energy.

There is no reason to believe stellar evolutionary theory.

Why?

The oldest rocks on the earth according to radioactive dating is 4.2 billion years.

And how does this square with your view that the universe is only some 6,000 years old? Or are you just stating a fact (in which case I agree ... the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old so it is reasonable to expect rocks 4.2 billion years old).

There is evidence of liquid water 4.3 billion years ago according to your worldview.

No problem there. But this isn't based on a "worldview", it is based on analysis of actual evidence.

So according to Stellar evolutionary theory, all the water on the Earth should have been frozen 4.4 billion years ago.

Source for that claim? It sounds like this comes not from stellar evolutionary theory but from the "cool early Earth hypothesis" stated in your quote (note the word hypothesis).

The earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago by accretion. Accretion would have caused all the water at the surface to evaporate. Once the earth cooled enough to start producing water in the mantle (the great deep). Then there was a worldwide flood during the Archean Eon. This still does not solve the faint sun paradox. But it does sound very familiar. Water coming up from deep inside the earth and a worldwide flood where could I have heard of that before?

Now that is a stretch! You're mixing up dates from hundreds of millions of years ago, or billions, with mere thousands (4,300) for Noah's flood. The Archean Eon was roughly 4.0 - 2.5 Billion years ago, some 6 orders of magnitude older than Noah's flood. And you're also ignoring the possibility that Earth got its early water from comets or asteroids, and assuming it was all produced in the mantle. Even if water did come from the mantle and flood the Earth during the Archean Eon (and what evidence do you have for that?), it could have nothing to do with the biblical flood because there were no humans (or wood, or plants, or multicellular animals) during the Archean Eon.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #75]

They have published legitimate science papers in legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals, but not related to their creationism-supporting ideas. That stuff is published in creationism journals only, where the conclusion is given (by a bible account) and they try to create a scenario where these bible accounts are consistent with modern science. Since they aren't (Genesis creation account, Noahs' flood, etc.) they are never published in real science journals because they are not consistent with modern science.

It is called a difference in worldview. And just like starting conditions matter when throwing a projectile, starting conditions matter in cosmology.

The only difference in the theories is the starting point.

There is on many things, but of course not on problems that are still open research problems such as the nature of dark matter and dark energy, origin of the universe. As usual, you are cherry picking things to try and suggest that modern cosmology is a confused mess of disagreement on every aspect of it, and that creationism answers all questions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What things are you saying there is consensus on that is different in creation cosmologies?

I believe there is plenty of evidence for the case that the Earth was at on point covered in water.
Not that was created by a global flood as described in Genesis, and certainly not 4,300 years ago! Things that may have happened billions of years ago, or things like a "snowball earth" hundreds of millions of years ago, are not even remotely close to the scenario described in the Genesis flood either in time frame, or in detail (eg. there were no doves or olive leaves, humans, wood to build an ark, etc. prior to the appearance of these things, obviously).

I believe you said that there was no evidence of a global flood. And yet there is evidence that the earth was covered in water during the Archean Eon. Are you conceding the point that the Earth was at one time covered in water?

Not in this case. Yes, I understand that reactivity is dependent on the shielding effect or the lack of a shielding effect of the electrons underneath the valance shell.
What (again)? Where did you pull that from? Look at a periodic table and explain why sodium (Na) on the left side likes to combine with chlorine (Cl) on the right side? Na has an extra electron in its outer shell (1s2, 2s2, 2p6, 3s1) while Cl is short one (1s2, 2s2, 2p6, 3s2, 3p5). If they get together and Na transfers an electron to Cl (an ionic bond), both are happy (unlike how H and O bond in water, where the electrons are shared and you have a covalent bond). It is the outer shell electrons that do the bonding in most chemical structures. Shielding by inner shell electrons (eg. in the spherical s orbitals) can reduce the ionization energy of outer shell electrons (eg. in p orbitals), which reduces the nuclear "pull" on the outer shell electrons which can reduce the ionization energy.

What do you think the shielding effect means? But is the atom a wave or a particle? Are electrons waves or particles? Does an electron take up space? If the electron does not take up space what are we actually measuring when we measure atomic radii?

The oldest rocks on the earth according to radioactive dating is 4.2 billion years.
And how does this square with your view that the universe is only some 6,000 years old? Or are you just stating a fact (in which case I agree ... the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old so it is reasonable to expect rocks 4.2 billion years old).

I had no doubt that you would.

There is evidence of liquid water 4.3 billion years ago according to your worldview.
No problem there. But this isn't based on a "worldview", it is based on analysis of actual evidence.

Actually, there is. There is no observable evidence that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. The 4.6 billion years is an assumption.

So according to Stellar evolutionary theory, all the water on the Earth should have been frozen 4.4 billion years ago.
Source for that claim? It sounds like this comes not from stellar evolutionary theory but from the "cool early Earth hypothesis" stated in your quote (note the word hypothesis).

The cool earth Earth "hypothesis" is the logical deduction from Stellar evolutionary theory. According to stellar evolutionary theory, the sun is 5 billion years old. So the sun would have been much cooler than it is today.

Now that is a stretch! You're mixing up dates from hundreds of millions of years ago, or billions, with mere thousands (4,300) for Noah's flood. The Archean Eon was roughly 4.0 - 2.5 Billion years ago, some 6 orders of magnitude older than Noah's flood. And you're also ignoring the possibility that Earth got its early water from comets or asteroids, and assuming it was all produced in the mantle. Even if water did come from the mantle and flood the Earth during the Archean Eon (and what evidence do you have for that?), it could have nothing to do with the biblical flood because there were no humans (or wood, or plants, or multicellular animals) during the Archean Eon.

You said there was no evidence of the earth's flooding when according to your world view the earth was covered in water for millions if not billions of years. The Bible speaks of water for the flood coming from the great deep or under the earth. And there is evidence that this is possible also.

Water on the Earth has always been a problem for stellar evolutionary theory because of solar winds during the formation of the sun. The solar winds would have pushed all of the lighter elements towards the outer rim of the solar system. This is why the gas giants are the outer planets at least that is the way the story goes. So hydrogen being this close to the sun is a real problem.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Kenisaw in post #65]

I

'd like to note that there is no belief or religion component of the scientific method. A person's religion or belief system, or lack of those things, has no bearing on whether or not a collected set of facts and data, rigorously tested and experimented many times over to verify the initial hypothesis results in a new scientific theory. Multiple studies, in the U.S., Taiwan, Turkey, Hong Kong, India, and Italy all showed that a majority of scientists considered themselves religious. 70-80% of all those scientists also though that there was no conflict between the science and religion.

The vast majority of those scientists however consider the theory of evolution and the billions of years date for the Earth to be well established fact.

When people think creation happened or how they believe creation happened has no bearing on their belief that a creator created the universe.

There is no creation science or atheist science. Science is a process, nothing more. Creationism is, to this point, an unsubstantiated hypothesis that most religious AND atheist scientists reject.

Sure there is:

There is the belief that a Supernatural being created the universe and from this starting point gives a very specific cosmology.

There is the belief that nothing created the universe and that gives a different cosmology.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #76]

It is called a difference in worldview. And just like starting conditions matter when throwing a projectile, starting conditions matter in cosmology.

The only difference in the theories is the starting point.

If you're arguing that starting points matter then you can't realistically support Humphreys' planetary magnetic field nonsense where the starting conditions were completely made up with no supporting evidence at all. Accepting things like that is indeed a "worldview" based on fantasy, not one based on actual science.

What things are you saying there is consensus on that is different in creation cosmologies?

Essentially everything supported by scientific concensus that differs from "creation cosmology's" claims to the contrary (eg. age of the Earth and universe, star formation, etc.).

I believe you said that there was no evidence of a global flood. And yet there is evidence that the earth was covered in water during the Archean Eon. Are you conceding the point that the Earth was at one time covered in water?

I said there is no evidence of the global flood described in Genesis, which would be entirely unrelated to any events prior to about 4,300 years ago. If the Earth was covered with water in the Archean Eon (which you dredge up as support for the biblical global flood in one instant, and discard as impossible in another because solar winds or some other imagined explanation would not allow it) it would have absolutely nothing to do with events several billions of years later.

What do you think the shielding effect means? But is the atom a wave or a particle? Are electrons waves or particles? Does an electron take up space? If the electron does not take up space what are we actually measuring when we measure atomic radii?

It means just what it implies. The inner shell electrons are between the nucleus and the outer shell electrons. So they can act as a "shield" from the strong positive nuclear charge, reducing its influence on the outer shell electrons with the result that the ionization energy is reduced. Electrons orbit the nucleus at some distance from the nucleus, and this is what generally defines the atomic radius. It has no dependence on the the size of an electron, which is miniscule in comparison to either the nucleus, or the distance from the electron shell to the nucleus. Electrons do have mass (9.11e-28 grams).

Actually, there is. There is no observable evidence that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. The 4.6 billion years is an assumption.

What? This is not an assumption but a value derived from a tremendous amount of highly consistent radiometric dating of meteorites and rocks on Earth. Have a look at these tables from one of your favorite sources Answers in Genesis (one of a series on meteorite dating):

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... hondrites/

Are they assuming all these referenced measurements? Do you think their conclusions about "primordial material" at the end is not an assumption pulled straight from the behind?

You said there was no evidence of the earth's flooding when according to your world view the earth was covered in water for millions if not billions of years.

I never said the Earth was covered with water for millions or billions of years! ... only that it could be possible that it could have been "flooded" for some unknown time period during the Archean Eon when you brought that idea up (presumably from some source that you didn't reference). But again, anything that happened during this period has nothing whatsoever to do with the global flood described in Genesis as it was eons before humans existed, so bringing up events millions and billions of years before that is irrelevant.

Water on the Earth has always been a problem for stellar evolutionary theory because of solar winds during the formation of the sun. The solar winds would have pushed all of the lighter elements towards the outer rim of the solar system. This is why the gas giants are the outer planets at least that is the way the story goes. So hydrogen being this close to the sun is a real problem.

Has "creation cosmology" figured out how to quantify the magnitude of solar winds during the sun's formation? Wouldn't you think that an accretion disk would have the heavier elements closer to the center of the circulation and center of mass, while the lighter elements would be farther out? Plus, once hydrogen is bound up in H2O molecules it is no longer gaseous H2 and its local concentration is governed by the fate of the H2O it is now part of.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Goat in post #58]
Good.

I wonder if creationists who supported this bill know just how many creation stories there are from around the world, and how clearly they show their own bias by not being willing to give equal time to all of them.

[Difflugia]

I wonder if creationists who supported this bill know just how many creation stories there are from around the world, and how clearly they show their own bias by not being willing to give equal time to all of them.

I've talked to enough creationists to think that the answers to these questions are yes. My experience is that they think that everyone is arguing in bad faith and it's all just part of a rhetorical game. They seem to think that "evidence" isn't a way to determine truth, but is a power play to marshall support for one's ideology, rather like opposing lawyers in a court case. It's not that they're not biased, but that their biases are just as valid as anyone else's, including those of the scientists.

If you think I'm just blowing smoke, read Ken Ham's creationist manifesto, The Lie: Evolution. Ken's convinced that evolution is ideologically more about some homosexual agenda than it is about evaluating scientific evidence. I mean that literally; he mentions homosexuality 20 times in a 180-page book about what most people would consider an unrelated topic. That seems to me pretty much impossible to believe without thinking that all of the scientists are just plain lying.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Kenisaw in post #64]

I do have to thank you for the two articles, that you sort of quoted from. They were very fascinating and gave a great deal of support for Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory.

You apparently did not understand the articles then. I'm curious how you think it supports the hydroplate hypothesis. Please be detailed in your forthcoming explanations if you don't mind.

That is easily explainable actually. The Earth's mantle is pretty solid higher up and more like a soft plastic as you get closer to the core of the planet. Uranium is a big atom, and it does not fit into the crystalline structure of the rocks in the mantle. Uranium when unbounded or in salt form is very soluble in water as well. So uranium can move around in water in the upper mantle fairly easily. Magnesium in basalt has a melting point several hundred degrees less than uranium, so it is hard for magnesium rocks to form around uranium because the uranium will harden into something and precipitate out before the basalt hardens. Uranium and silicon have roughly the same melting point, so that when silicon hardens in granites it can trap uranium in the hardened rock.

Oh wow!! The chemistry is so bad in this statement it hurts my head.

Let's start with my favorite in the form of a quote from Hamlet. "To react or not to react that is the question." Not how large an atom is. Atoms today are considered a combination of waves and particles so size really has nothing to do with chemical reactions. But what does have a great deal to do with chemical reactions is the type of environment that an element exists in, whether it is oxidizing or reducing.

Uranium when it is in an oxidizing environment like water means it can move in solution and then when uranium is in a reducing environment it will precipitate out in its oxide form.

You apparently don't realize you just agreed with me. More on that in a minute. First we need to address your dubious statement.

Atomic size does matter. It's obvious that different elements have different sizes when you compare a cubic foot of aluminum (168 pounds) to a cubic foot of uranium (over half a ton). At the atomic level there is a big difference between magnesium with 28 protons and neutrons and uranium with 258.
When magma is rapidly cooled (like when it comes into contact with 34 degree F seawater on the ocean floor) it doesn't have time to form large, complex crystal structures. Magnesium oxide or calcium oxide will form cube shaped crystals, or silicon dioxide (quartz) will form it's basic hexagon and triangle crystal. But uranium won't fit into those crystals. It's like trying to replace a tennis ball with a basketball. The shape of the crystal would be disrupted.

Protons and neutrons are more particle then wave. It is probably accurate to say they are particles with wave functions inside. We know they have diameters because of collision experiments at places like the LHC, and we know their mass. So the more of them in an atom, the larger the atom is. Not sure where you got the idea what particle size doesn't matter in chemistry, but that idea is baseless.

On to your statement about oxidation and reduction. That's what I said already, in the very post you quoted before you wrote that. You know, the part where I talked about uranium being picked up and dropped out of water? I have no idea why you think you've made a different point here. Water picks up and drops all kinds of elements actually, but this is news to no one with hard water stains in their shower. Water can be both an oxidizer or a reductive agent, or else it wouldn't be able to create uranium deposits or calcite crystals in limestone caves, etc.

No wonder your head hurt. I think your brain was trying to tell you that you weren't contradicting my point.

In solution, uranium travels in molecular complexes with carbonate, sulfate and chloride as long as the chemical conditions are oxidizing. But under reducing conditions, uranium drops out of solution as oxide minerals.

Because uranium moves in solution under oxidizing conditions and drops out under reducing conditions, it tends to gather where oxygen is absent, such as in black shales and other rocks rich in organic material. https://www.thoughtco.com/uranium-in-a-nutshell-1440949

This is exactly what we would expect to see in a flood situation in which uranium and all of its daughter elements were being made by a z-pinch in the crust. The uranium would be picked up by the water and carried along until a barrier was reached and all of the organic matter and debris especially fine particles would be dropped when the speed of the water decreased because of the barrier.

There is not enough force or pressure to create uranium on Earth, not even in the core of the planet. Water squeezing through rock isn't going to cut it, and there's no way to get the required 10^7 degrees K in temp either. The idea of a worldwide flood has no evidentiary support. You can't get hundreds of sedimentary layers from one flood event. You can't get salt domes or chalk formations or coal seams from a worldwide flood event. Whether it is AIG standard Bible flood or Brown's hydroplate hypothesis, the data doesn't support those claims.

Another feature of basalt is that it is, for a rock, pretty porous. So seawater gets forced through it and the water can migrate uranium out of the basaltic rocks. Because the basalt exists in a marine environment there is no chance for the uranium to collect in seams or niches, and it ends back at the top of the mantle layer.

Ow!! This, like, pains me to read. Exactly how does it get back into the mantle? Are you trying to say that it drains down through a few miles of basaltic rock!!! Where does the oxygen come from to keep the uranium oxide from precipitating out? Did you actually read the papers that you cited? Because they say the following.

It's called hydrothermal circulation. The best known example of this process is the black smokers on the sea floor. There is both active and passive forms of hydrothermal circulation. This is all possible because quickly cooling rock is loaded with cracks, fissures, and so forth. The fine grained basalt has lots of weak points that seawater will exploit. Plenty of info on it should you want to read up on it.

Your oxygen question shows that you don't understand how oxidation and reduction works. It's not an oxygen thing, it's an electron thing. You don't need oxygen for oxidation or reduction. Seawater reacts with basalt and forms all kinds of ions, like Si, Ca, Ba, Li, Fe, Mn, Cu, Ni, Zn and hydrogen ions. It also is the sink for ions such as Mg, K, B, Rb, H2O, Cs and U, and seawater is loaded with salts as well. "Oxidation" got its name because the first oxidizer humans discovered was oxygen, it doesn't mean oxygen has to be involved in the chemical reaction. There's plenty of oxidation and reduction agents on the seafloor.

Mafic and ultramafic rock types have consistently low concentrations of uranium rarely exceeding 1 ppm. Of all the common igneous rock types, granites have the highest average concentration, approximately 3.5-4.5 ppm U. In general, most igneous rocks contain from 0.003 to 5 PPm U.
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7315 ... %20PPm%20U.

Mafic rock is the oceanic crust and ultramafic rock is in the mantle. So there is at least one order of magnitude difference between granite and mafic rock.

Right. I already said this in my original post. Uranium is an incompatible element for the rocks of the mantle, which is why it is found in greater abundance in the continental crusts.

Granite is also porous, but since it exists above the bottom of the ocean the uranium can collect in seams as the water drops it or evaporates out of the rock.

I do love good fiction. To Hamlet again, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Here is what the article you quoted states where most of the uranium in the world came from.

As large bodies of granite solidify, the trace amounts of uranium become concentrated in the last bits of fluid left. Especially at shallow levels, these may fracture and invade surrounding rocks with metal-bearing fluids, leaving veins of ore. More episodes of tectonic activity can concentrate these further, and the world's largest uranium deposit is one of these, a hematite breccia complex at Olympic Dam in South Australia. https://www.thoughtco.com/uranium-in-a-nutshell-1440949

This does not say when water evaporated leaving behind uranium residue. It says that when large bodies of granite solidified, so it is referring to stellar evolutionary theory. You know the one that tries to describe the earth was at one time a molten ball of liquid rock. This theory has many problems and one of the greatest being the observations of liquid water in some of the oldest rocks found on this planet.

So you quote "last bits of fluid left"....and then write "this does not say when water evaporated leaving behind uranium residue". So where did the rest of the fluid go, so there was only the "last bits of fluid left"? I'm sure you can find some articles involving sandstones in dry climates that might be of help.

Uranium deposits also occur when the uranium drops out of the water. I said that in the my original post too.

We can chat about the breccia below...

Now does anyone want to take a guess as to a mineral that could be in the hematite breccia rock? anyone?

Breccia fragments are composed of quartzite (metamorphosed quartz sandstone). Breccias are associated with mechanical weathering in regions of high tectonic activity, typically relatively close to the sourceland. Rocks such as this are often deposited in talus slopes or alluvial fans at the base of slopes. http://csmgeo.csm.jmu.edu/geollab/ficht ... ccia1.html

Lot of things to correct here:

First of all hematite is NOT quartzite. Hematite is an iron oxide. The Olympic site is heavily laden with hematite breccia, with granite breccia on the outer portions of the deposit. Barite and hematite dominate the core of the deposit (Thomas Hahn, The OLYMPIC DAM Cu-U-Au-Ag-REE deposit,
Australia). There is heterolithic bedding in the deposit. These beddings are very rare for fluvial environments (A.J. Martin, 2000). According to Johnson & McCulloch (1995) the liquid intrusion is proposed to be a fluid influenced by mafic to ultramafic, mantle derived magma (imagine that, deeply circulating magmatic water...now where have we heard that before...). There are intrusions of ultramafic and mafic dykes in the area, showing volcanic activity was involved (Reynolds, 2000).

This explains all the seams of deposited minerals containing the copper, gold, silver, uranium, and barium (among others).

I suspect you think this formation is somehow explained by Brown's hydroplate concept. Nothing could be further from the truth...