>>I looked through the paper about 3 times and can't find this 4 billion reference, could you point me to the page this is stated please.>>
In Table 1 there are two of their runs that were at 3.3 billion/L (3.3 million per mL). In the paragraph just under that there is this:
>>The cultures were harvested by centrifugation (10 min at 3000 g) during early exponential growth phase when cell density was approximately 8 × 105 cells mL−1 (for this strain under these culture conditions the maximum cell density at the end of the growth phase was ∼4 × 106 cells mL−1).>>
That translates to 4 billion per L. This says "early exponential growth"...not sure if that is a bloom. I couldn't find page numbers. Notice there is a ONE THOUSAND FOLD increase, from the beginning of a growth to the maximum. Who could say that in MORE favorable conditions there couldn't be (not a thousand-fold) but a 10 or 100-fold increase? Can you say that? Has there ever been any experimentation to show this? Nope. Not in conditions like the Flood.
>>All today's big blooms occur in the upper surface waters. I don't know why you think light wouldn't become more restricted lower down as blooms intensify above, surely that's common sense, I've already given you a link that shows this effect.>>
Neither of us knows if species that like it in upper waters would not also like it lower down if there were enough nutrients of the type they like down there. And we don't know if those that like it down low (1% light) would also like it if there were less light and more nutrients. When you get down to 1% I would have doubts that more blocking of light above would have a lot of effect....taking it down from 1% to what? .5%? .25% Maybe that's not such a big deal to them.
Me>>NOT true. The only unique condition reported (to cause the high numbers) was the effluent from a duck ranch...which means the nutrients feeding them were BIOLOGICAL. To me, that means nothing else than "heterotroph." That is, they feed on organic matter. Can you not admit to that OBVIOUS fact?
Wibble>>No because the nutrients that cause phytoplankton to proliferate is not 'organic matter', its inorganic nutrients, primarily Nitrogen and phosphorus. That doesn't make them heterotrophs.>>
Ok..so I guess you mean that the high growth near the duck ranch was NOT them eating duck crap or waste but the INorganic molecules? I'm not really buying that at all...but maybe so. So why couldn't that also be true in a big flood with lots of dead bodies in the water? Isn't it 6 of one half a dozen of the other?
>>All that water in a rapidly receding flood wouldn't suspend sediment in the upper layers ? Think of the current velocities that would be an inevitable consequence of such an event.>>
Water upwelling from a mile or more below and 1000's of miles away 5 months previously would not nec. cause "currents" locally "today." The upwelling STOPS at some point (after 150 days) and then in the 10th month it begins to lower...not a violent event and not nec. involving much erosion. Indeed the mountains may have been pushed upward.
>>So what if the top layer is Permian at the Grand Canyon. No one says that deposition has to be continuous everwhere around the world and without checking right now there could have been later layers there that were subsequently eroded.>>
Sounds to me that is pretty "crazy" and a "fantasy." You want to believe that something like 300 million years of deposition that supposedly forms the layers above the Permian elsewhere just got SKIPPED near the GC? Or that it all (many many more recent ages) just disappeared without ANY signs of erosion or places where the erosion was ineffective in that locale? Thousands of square miles...maybe millions...without any sign of where it could have gone?
>>What is important is the order of layers not whether any are missing. I would like to see these explanations from 'expert YECs'.>>
The order is just circular reasoning. The "youngest" are deemed so just because those are the top layers. Of course they are younger...and often AEs will agree they were laid down very rapidly, by water. But how much time is BETWEEN the layers? And why is there absolutely NO sign of erosion between any of the layers (those shown in the GC...below the Permian)? And why would you have INTERBEDDING of the layers sometimes...when supposedly millions of years passed between the two layers which are interbedded? This could be a new topic of course.
>The only reason something crazy like these subterranean chambers are invented is to crowbar the bible account into nature.>
As I told you (but you ignored) there are indeed direct indicators that there are WATER chambers (residual pockets left over after the chambers were mostly emptied during the Flood)...found by drilling, by hot water vents below deep seabeds, and even by seismic signals from under mountains. These are FAR below the water table or ocean floors. Brown lists many of his predictions about this which have been found to be verified later. Will you at least concede that sometimes "crazy crowbars" are used by non-YECs? I mean COME ON. Life comes from life...EXCEPT if an AE needs to "crowbar" some wacky idea to explain how it came from NON-life long ago...and only ONCE! Puh-LEEZE. And I could list a bunch more "crowbarring" the AEs do. Will you concede that, Wibble?