Stratigraphy and Creationism

Out of curiousity, how do creationists explain strata if they don't accept that it has been laid down by sedimentation? I just got a wonderful little book entitled, "The Man Who Found Time: James Hutton and the Discovery of Earth's Antiquity". It really puts into perspective how old this debate is.From what I've heard by the vague statements creationists make about strata, it was somehow laid down by the Flood during some sort of instant stratification. I've never actually heard of the exact mechanism though, so if anyone can fill me in I'd be greatful.In this book, it talks about Hutton and some colleagues finding a peculiar headland off the coast of Scotland. It consists of layers of rock that stretches vertically across the headland at the bottom, above that a little bit rough, sloppy rock, and finally above that layers of rock laid down horizontally. Configured something like this____
____
~~~~
lllllllllllllNow the classical explanation of this would be that the bottom layers were first laid down, then due to geological processes the layers collapsed in the center, folding the rock so the strata are vertical (like closing a book). Then it was covered in water, which eroded the top part; this accounts for the rough sloppy layer. After this, strata began to be laid down again, accounting for the top horizontal layers.So my main question is, if the strata were laid down through instant stratification from the flood, how does one account for the horizontal layers above the vertical layers?Note: I'm not actually sure how creationists account for strata, so this may or may not be a problem for them.JustinC[This message has been edited by JustinCy, 11-06-2003][This message has been edited by JustinCy, 11-06-2003]

quote:

---

So my main question is, if the strata were laid down through instant stratification from the flood, how does one account for the horizontal layers above the vertical layers?

​

Note: I'm not actually sure how creationists account for strata, so this may or may not be a problem for them.

---

It is not a problem for them for two reasons. One is that they generally do not have a good geological background, so I doubt that you will get an answer. The other is that they ignore the evidence based on the idea that uniformitarianism is invalid. That is the only real reasoning involved...

quote:

---

The other is that they ignore the evidence based on the idea that uniformitarianism is invalid.

---

From what I understand, they say somehow the flood caused all the strata we see today. So even if they reject uniformitarianism, why would there be verticaly layers below horizontal ones?Any YEC's out there?

Those layers aren't actually vertical... you're just interpreting the strata incorrectly because of your indoctrination into materialistically-biased uniformitarian propaganda.What you need is to get you some God-goggles. Then all will be revealed.

Ok, I just put the goggles on.You are right, I now see how I am interpreting the strata wrong. First the flood layed down vertical strata, and then it layed down horizontal strata...it's all so clear.

There, see how easy that was?NEXT!!lol[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 11-07-2003][This message has been edited by roxrkool, 11-19-2003]

There is some good info on experiments in stratification by Guy Berthault at http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/Also, I would add that a year-long global flood beginning in the depths of the ocean (i.e. "the fountains of the great deep" as the Bible calls it) would likely cause sedimentation of the shores and lowlands in successive waves/oscillations, while rain would erode the highlands and cause mudslides. All kinds of chaos and unconformities until everything was submerged. Then the retreat and drainage of all that water for several months would also cause huge amounts of sedimentation and erosion. Just look at what Mt St Helens did for the Toutle river and Spirit Lake.Lunkhead

quote:

---

From what I understand, they say somehow the flood caused all the strata we see today

---

JM: Actually, that's one of the problems. They don't specifically say which strata are laid down by the flood. The reason is because if they do so, then they are confronted with all kind of nasty data of deserts in the flood, glaciers in the flood and soil formation in the flood. You'll get no specifics because specifics kill the notion.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

There is some good info on experiments in stratification by Guy Berthault at http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/

---

JM: Irrelevant to the Noachian flood.

quote:

---

Just look at what Mt St Helens did for the Toutle river and Spirit Lake.

---

JM: The Toutle River? THis has nothing to do with the global flood unless you are saying that the global flood resulted from erosional effects of a dacitic eruption.

quote:

---

All kinds of chaos and unconformities until everything was submerged

---

JM: Except, of course for the marine fossils which are nicely ordered! How about going out on a limb and answering the following questions:Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the pre-flood/flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature.b. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, strata laid down during the peak of the global flood (i.e. globally correlatable strata all deposited under water)? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for these rocks in the creationist literature.c. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the flood/post-flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature. To be fair, creationists have a little more leeway in defining this boundary since the flood waters receded over a slightly longer time interval, but it still should be possible to provide considerable detail.CheersJoe Meert

There is some good info on experiments in stratification by Guy Berthault at http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JM quoted:
Irrelevant to the Noachian flood.
___________________________Irrelevant? Water-deposition, laminations, and stratification of sediment ARE the result of any flood, especially a Global flood.Lunkhead

quote:

---

Irrelevant? Water-deposition, laminations, and stratification of sediment ARE the result of any flood, especially a Global flood

---

JM: His 'article' is totally irrelevant to whether or not a global flood occurred. In other words, there is nothing in the discussion that absolutely requires a global flood. You have to start by showing that a global flood occurred first, then you can worry about specific types of deposits. For example, once you've established that a global flood occurred and was chaotic, then you can begin to explain how the ordering of the fossil record arose from such chaos.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-18-2004]

Back to square one. The evidence is blatantly obvious that there was global flooding. The global occurrance of water-deposited sediment (along with sea creatures) and stratification IS the evidence. Remember, for creatures to be fossilized they must be buried before they rot (therefore the "appearance" of flora and fauna in various strata are really their "disappearance"). Whether or not all, some, or part of the strata are due to the Noachian flood, the formation of the planet, or some other global catastrophe is anybody's guess. None of us were there when these sediments were laid down, and it would be impossible to reconstruct the world prior to a global catastrophe that changed the face of the planet. I wouldn't stake my life on a 6-day creation, but global flooding most definitely resulted in geologic strata.Lunkhead

quote:

---

JM: His 'article' is totally irrelevant to whether or not a global flood occurred....

---

Interesting how some YECs tell us that the flood was unlike anything we've ever seen.It was the mother of all catasrophes.And processes were clearly so different back then.And we don't even know what FLOOD deposits might look like...And yet these processes can be modeled in a flume?

quote:

---

Back to square one. The evidence is blatantly obvious that there was global flooding. The global occurrance of water-deposited sediment (along with sea creatures) and stratification IS the evidence.

---

What about the strata that are forming today? What about the organisms that are being buried as we speak?So.... Where's the flood?

quote:

---

Remember, for creatures to be fossilized they must be buried before they rot (therefore the "appearance" of flora and fauna in various strata are really their "disappearance").

---

You know all about this, eh? Actually, you are wrong, another unfortunate victim of the public educations system and YEC brainwashing. Many fossils DO show evidence of surface transport and/or predation. Why do you think soft body parts are so uncommon? Do you think that decay leaves nothing behind in the sediments?

quote:

---

Whether or not all, some, or part of the strata are due to the Noachian flood, the formation of the planet, or some other global catastrophe is anybody's guess. None of us were there when these sediments were laid down, and it would be impossible to reconstruct the world prior to a global catastrophe that changed the face of the planet.

---

How was the face of the planet changed? Is it necessary for you to witness everything before you will accept it?

quote:

---

I wouldn't stake my life on a 6-day creation, but global flooding most definitely resulted in geologic strata.

---

Keep your day job. You would be a terrible gambler.

My original point about Berthault and his experiments were that he shows simply that in conditions of flowing water with particles of various size, segregation of particles, stratification, and lamination of layers occur spontaneously and almost simultaneously. Read his experiments.LunkheadPS This forum should be called "ATDforum" (Agree to Disagree). Evolutionists are convinced merely by what they see. Creationists are convinced by what they cannot see. And both are convinced the other is wrong.