Sedimentary Rock Formation

quod erat demonstrandum... And thus it is demonstrated.Or, a more precise translation: "There ya go!"

Yes, and land animals at that. This is what makes discussions with YECs so frustrating. Now I need to know what you mean by 'dune-analogous', and I have to prove something 'absolutely'.First, there is ample evidence from sorting data to gross structural information, to fossils, to textural features, that so strongly suggest subaerial origin that it is pure denial to suggest otherwise. My point in the last post was that, if sand dune could form in the present (I assume you accept this), then why could they NOT be found in the geologic record?We are not discussing absolutes here. If you want to know that you need to go outside science. Science is about evidence and explanations. I cannot prove absolutely that my wristwatch is correct, either, but I can be pretty sure that it will get me to work on time. Does that mean my watch is correct or incorrect? In a real sense...Now, do you subject your own worldview to the same scrutiny? Can you prove YEC absolutely? If not, why then, do you require absolute proof from science?

and in some cases, Quite Easily Done

Fossilized reefs provide a serious problem for flood theories. We know they grow slowly and only in certain environments. We can recognize them in the rock record by their distinct characteristics.Like HereGeologic history of the link aboveAnd for even more detail (something unheard of in YEC articles)How they grow in the middle of a one year flood on top of other flood sediments is the problem for the YEC position.This message has been edited by trenobar, 09-06-2005 11:42 AMThis message has been edited by trenobar, 09-06-2005 11:49 AM

We're glad you're here and hope to learn much from you in the future.At the bottom of this message are links to other threads that might make your stay here more enjoyable.

---

Another problem with sedminentry depositions are unconformities. See here for a good article with a few pictures and description.To look at the first one (for no better reason than it's from Scotland).You have a layer of shale - which must be deposited horizontally in water. Then it was defomed to the horizontal, which must have been after it lithified. Then it was exposed, eroded off, and a layer of pebble erosion products (land) deposited on top. Then the whole thing was topped off with Old Red Sandstone (marine). Finally, the whole shooting match was canted off the vertical which, again, must have happened after the other two layers had lithified. Fit all that in one year.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

edge, I have trouble visualizing how preservation and fossilization can occur without mud (water-borne sediments). This makes me suspect the conclusion that the features are aeolian dunes is incorrect for some reason. I don't know; you said that dunes are analogs of certain geologic features. I figured you mostly meant cross-bedding, but I am not sure. If, by fossils, you mean the fact that they are land-animal fossils, that doesn't mean much to me. Land animals can easily be overcome by a watery environment -- in the case of a world-wide flood, it would be certain.However, I know nothing about the other things you mention. Sorting data? Gross structural information? Textural features?Of these three things, textural features strikes me as irrelevant (I could be wrong, of course). But it would seem to me that water-deposited sand that turned to stone would have a very similar texture to wind-deposited sand that turned to stone (although I can't visualized wind-deposited sand turning to stone...not saying it's impossible, though).Sorting data? Gross structural information? Could you provide more details about these subjects...or an informative link. Of course, any comments on the other topics is also appreciated.--Jason{edited for typos}This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-09-2005 01:00 AM

quote:

---

I have trouble visualizing how preservation and fossilization can occur without mud (water-borne sediments). This makes me suspect the conclusion that the features are aeolian dunes is incorrect for some reason.

---

There are fossils that have been attributed to sandstorms (which would rapidky bury the victims). And a dry desert could naturally mummify dead animals. So I think you need to think a bit harder before ruling out dunes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have trouble visualizing how preservation and fossilization can occur without mud (water-borne sediments). This makes me suspect the conclusion that the features are aeolian dunes is incorrect for some reason.

---

​

There are fossils that have been attributed to sandstorms (which would rapidky bury the victims). And a dry desert could naturally mummify dead animals. So I think you need to think a bit harder before ruling out dunes.

---

Perhaps the best example is the fossil of the (badly named) oviraptor found in Mongolia incubating her eggs when overcome by a sandstorm. Remember, as has been said before the charataristics of wind-deposited sediment are quite different from water-deposited, and geologists can easilly tell the diference.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

Well, there you go. You don't know anything about topics that geologists have been studying for generations. And you feel competent to say they are all wrong... Are you sure you could be wrong? Wrong again. On at least two accounts. No. I'm sure this would be a waste of time on my part. YOu have shown no inclination to learn up to this point. Why would that change?This message has been edited by edge, 09-10-2005 12:37 AM

TheLiteralist

quote:

---

Of these three things, textural features strikes me as irrelevant (I could be wrong, of course). But it would seem to me that water-deposited sand that turned to stone would have a very similar texture to wind-deposited sand that turned to stone (although I can't visualized wind-deposited sand turning to stone...not saying it's impossible, though).

---

All sedimentary rocks are made up of small particles deposited and lithified.Wind-deposited sediments are characterised by rough, jagged edge particles.Water deposited sediments are characterised by smooth, rounded particles.This can be observed today: compare beach and desert sand.The differences are obvious to even a slightly trained eye (I took a one-year geology option as part of my physics degree, and can speak from personal experience).And you have still not addressed the issue of the fossilised dinosaur nest (oviraptor). Was she nesting underwater?edited to correct spellingThis message has been edited by MarkAustin, 09-10-2005 03:15 AM

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

quote:

---

Wind-deposited sediments are characterised by rough, jagged edge particles.

---

A minor correction, but quite the opposite. Aeolian sandstones are deposited from a high-energy environment, so they are texturally very mature: they tend to be round like billiards and nearly pure quartz. Many grains have a frosted appearance from being beaten up during transport.This message has been edited by gene90, 09-13-2005 11:01 PM

Hi MarkAustin, I looked back at your previous post Message 39, in which you state the following about the oviraptor. You probably had the question about nesting in mind when you wrote the statement; however, you wrote a statement and not a question. I have done this before, too...so no biggie, but I just wanted you to realize why I didn't answer it before -- i.e., I didn't realize you had a question in mind.The answer from the YEC paradigm is "NO." She was not nesting underwater, rather she and her nest -- though located in a terrestial environment -- were suddenly buried/crushed by sediment-rich waters due to the Genesis Flood. This would be similar -- though not exactly like -- the recent tsunami. The people killed by the tsunami were not living in the water, but -- though quite a distance inland -- suddenly found themselves underwater.You are perhaps unfamiliar with the YEC claim that nearly all fossils and sedimentary rock layers are a result of the Noachian Flood.--Jason

So then which flood made the layers that the ovirapor was sitting on top of when it was buried?

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Hi, Jason. If the Garden of Eden existed on the pre-Flood surface and the Flood buried the old under thousands of feet of sediments, why do believers seek it on today`s surface? Flotation chambers, perhaps?