glaciers and the flood

I just scanned through the comments in this thread.I'd like to direct your attention to Michal Oard's monograph "An Ice Age caused by the Genesis Flood" 199?. This book can be interlibrary loaned if you don't want to buy it. Much of the content of his book can be found on-line in an assortment of articles. Just search for his name. I'd like to see a discussion of his points by those who take the time to read the book.AllenPS Oard was a government meterologist for 25 year (just recently retired).Allen

quote:

---

The problem is that no one is willing to be pinned down on the timing of the flood and the evidence for the flood. If it occurred in the Precambrian (ala Setterfield and a few others), then the Phanerozoic geologic record (especially the Pleistocene) would be fairly far removed from the ravages of the flood (even using a 10000 year interval).

---

Come on, Joe, you know full well that flood catastrophists utterly reject all uniformitarian dating of the geologic record as irrelevant to their model. So your argument here is irrelevant to a catastrophic flood model.The majority of flood catastrophists place most of the geologic record as having been placed during the flood cataclysm. They are not going to try to put the flood somewhere "within" some small part geologic record. So the arguments should be concerned with if the strata can be emplaced in a catastrophic environment.Allen

quote:

---

1) What is the flood model for glaciation?
(snip)

​

In case of item 1, the flood model for glaciation, Young Earth creationists have an extreme problem in that their model postulates a single glacial episode. However, geologists, who have studied glacial deposits in detail, have found an abundance of evidence that demonstrates there have been multiple glaciations, 10 to 12. This evidence is summarized by books such as Sibrava et al. (1986). The glacial sediments directly deposited by glaciers and ice sheets are called glacial tills or, for short, "till". These glacial episodes were each separated by periods of time long enough for the deep weathering of the previous glacial tills; formation of well-developed soils, called "paleosols" when buried, in the tills; and the erosion of valleys in the glacial tills.

---

Oard addresses, in detail, multiple glacial episodes in his book. He concludes that:
1) proposed uniformitarian causes for a single ice age are hoplessly inadequate, even more so for multiple ice ages.
2) The glacial-interglacial fringe depositional sequences simply represent multiple regression and surges of a single ice age.
3) High erosion along the fringes of the glaciers is due to high precipitation and melt water as the glaciers regress. Oard's model proposes a "warm" global environment.I recommend reading Oard's book first and then criticizing his model. If Oard's model is so bad, it should be a piece of cake to rip it appart. But, creationay cataclysmists won't take you seriously unless you actually read Oard's detailed model.Allen

quote:

---

I'd settle for you telling me what 'most' means in your terminology? Is what uniformitarians refer to as the Paleozoic flood or not flood? How about the Mesozoic (flood or no flood?). The Cenozoic (flood or no flood)? Or do you assert that superposition of strata is totally meaningless even compressed to a 6000 year (or 1 year) time interval?

---

I'm aware of a hand full of creationary catactclysmic flood models [you mentioned Setterfield for one] Some begin and end the flood in different parts of the geologic record. However, the more popular ideas put the beginning of the flood with layers that are typically called 'Cambrian' and put the end of the flood in layers typically labled 'Tertiary.'Flood cataclysmic geologists believe that 'superposition' is the most important 'law' of geology. What they disagree with is the typical interpetation of depositional environments. The current sedimentary rock classification system is based on the uniformitarian concept of three primary depositional environments (with many sub-environments) -- marine, non-marine (i.e. continental) and transitional. Such a classification system automatically precludes interpretation of the geologic record as the result of a global cataclysm of Biblical perportions. Flood cataclysmists agree that such a classification system is valid as long as there has not been a global flood, but they believe that there has been such a global cataclysm. Therefore, any classification system based on the idea that there was no global cataclysm is bound to be inadequate. As a result, there is now a concerted effort among flood cataclysmic geologists to develop a new interpretive classification system of sedimentary rocks.Just as uniformitarian geologists base their classification system upon their belief in naturalism, Flood cataclysmists base their interpretation upon their belief in the Biblical record.Most flood cataclysmists are Christains, meaning that they believe in Jesus as their savior. Not only is Jesus their savior he is also the creator.

quote:

---

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. John 1:1-3,14

---

As God and Creator, Jesus the Word spoke to us telling us what he has done and what he will do.

quote:

---

Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7

---

He did this by moving men to write.

quote:

---

You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20,21

---

Thus, believers in Jesus have confidence that the books of the Bible are not a collection of superstitious myths, but rather, they reveal the truth about God, what he has done, and are for our good.

quote:

---

All Scripture is God-breathed {inspired} and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16,17

---

So when Christians read where Jesus reveals to us through his prophets that there was a global cataclysm, they place full confidence in it.Nature, as it functions now, is not cataclysmic, but we know through the Witness who was there, who caused it, and who has told us about it, that the ordinary was superceeded by an extraordinary global event. Therefore, how nature functions now can not be the model by which to interpret the geologic record. It will be inadequate at best. So, Flood cataclysmists look to the rare and limited cataclysmic events to model the Flood cataclysm.Allen

quote:

---

JM: Yes, so how is it that layers from Cambrian through Tertiary contain hundreds (if not thousands) of paleosols? These ancient soil horizons require time to form.

---

INTERPETATION! INTERPRETATION! INTERPRETATION!Like I said before it all comes down to which paradigm you choose to do science within -- Naturalism or Creationism.As I'm sure you know, and probably choose to reject purely out of prejudice, AiG has the following response to your claims about paleosols.

quote:

---

Paleosols: digging deeper buries 'challenge' to Flood geology
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

---

And these articles in CRSQ

quote:

---

Are paleosols Really ancient soils?
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

​

The possible origin of fossil wood and pollen in the Aguja and javelina formations, Big Bend National park, texas
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

---

And you say

quote:

---

JM: They contain rootlets

---

Rootlets? Where are the roots? What kind of natural mechanism could rip all the rootlets off the roots and then only preserve the rootlets? If rootlets are preserved in-situ then the roots should be also.

quote:

---

and burrows indicating a thriving (and non submersed) community. You can find them all over the globe and all through the geologic column. They are utterly unexplainable in terms of a global flood.
Vertebrate burrows in Jurassic Paleosol (courtesy S. Hasiotis)

---

Creationary geologists are working on reinterpretation of burrows.

quote:

---

DOUGHERTY GAP: Evidence for a Turbidity Current Paleoenvironment
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

---

Some burrows are reinterpreted as the result of animals burrowing the way out of a quick burial. This does not explain all structures that are interpreted as burrows. Creationary cataclysmists are doing what they can as they can.

quote:

---

JM: How do you explain the presence of glacial deposits in the Ordovician for example in your flood model?
Tillite example.

---

Are they tillites?? Oard has published research on this.

quote:

---

Michael Oard 1997, Monograph
Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic submarine landslides? 130p.

​

summarised here:
"A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow." M. Oard
A Classic Tillite Reclassified as a Submarine Debris Flow | Answers in Genesis

---

quote:

---

JM: What flood produces massive aeolian deposits?

---

More interpretation! Both the Navajo and Coconino sandstones have been interpreted as aeolian deposits. However, flood catastrophists have long pointed out the evidences fits underwater deposition far better. Austin's book "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe" discusses these evidences.

quote:

---

JM: What were termites doing establishing colonies and building giant nests in the midst of this global tempest.
FOSSIL TERMITE MOUNDS (courtesy Steve Hasiotis)

---

As a child I climbed on, played around and tore apart huge termite mounds in Kenya, Africa. I never saw any that looked remotely like this.

quote:

---

JM:The reason creationists don't have a uniform model? If they did, they'd be hard pressed to explain the observations. They need to be nebulous in order to convince their brethren that the flood is possible when the geologic record is unequivocal in its rejection of a global flood.

---

If you will read material from AiG and CRSQ, but I'm certain you don't and won't, you'll see that creationary scientists are far from being nebulous. The geologic record is also far from unequivocal. It all depends upon which paradigm you choose or unknowingly work in by default.

quote:

---

JM: Baloney, the classification system has nothing to do with philosophical beliefs. Christians, Muslim, agnostic and atheist scientists were all responsible for studying ancient depositional environments. It's only ye-creationists who refuse to see what the rocks are telling them.

---

It is impossible for anyone of any persuasion to do any science without a set of presuppositions. And, ALL such presupositions come from philosophical beliefs. I find it astonishing that you seem unaware of this most basic of scientific philosophy. But, then it may not be all that odd, given that the evolutionary and humanistic guided education system fails in any real education. And they wonder why, after nearly a hundred years of indoctrination, that 80% of the USA population still believes in God and Creation.The difference between what evolutionists see in the rock and what flood cataclysmists see in the rocks depends upon the foundation they interpret upon.

quote:

---

JM: More Christians are not flood cataclysmists, meaning that they also believe Jesus is their savior. The fact that a few have chosen to believe an ancient flood myth has nothing to do with their salvation.

---

It runs about 50/50 between those Christians who accept flood cataclysm and not.Jesus must also be one of the few who believed in the ancient flood "myth."

quote:

---

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. Matt 24:36-39

---

What kind of salvation can there be when the supposed savior is so gullible he can't comprehend truth from fiction? Why should anyone put any trust in a future second coming when it is compared to a non-event?No. Jesus the Word, is the same Creator God who caused the Bible to be written so we would know the truth and who caused Noah's Flood to happen and now is coming again to bring salvation and everlasting life. If people don't believe in the Flood, then why bother believeing anything else, since it can't be true either.The problem is not with the Bible, the problem is with Naturalism and Evolutionism which has deceived the world into thinking that science can only be done within Naturalism. Science can also be done within the philosophic foundation of Creationism as well.Furthermore, "Beyond scientific Creationism" in Dec. 2004, CRSQ [ The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) ] points out that Naturalism has borrowed all it's philosophical presuppositions from the Bible. The great scientific synthesis of nature could never have happened if it had not been for Christianity.Allen

quote:

---

Then you'll have to explain terrestrial tetrapod tracks found here:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand3.htm
Please explain how these tracks formed in the middle of a flood and how the were preserved in the raging floodwaters that dropped the entire Phanerozoic record in one year.

---

I have seen these tracks in Grand Canyon, in sandstone quarries near by, in the geology specimin vault at the Museum of Northern Arizona, and I have some samples in my personal collection.Point #1: No one has ever found the bones of this animal so no one knows what it is. All they know is that it has 4 feet with 5 claws on each. It has a tail that sometimes drags and it comes in a variaty of sizes.
point #2: It is interpreted as a terrestrial animal because the coconino sandstone is interpreted as aeolian.How these track could be made in the sand during a flood cataclysm has already been discussed in detail in flood cataclymic literature. If you want to know simply search for it. I don't have time to pander to your creationary cataclysmic illiteracy.Since the coconino sandstone is considered an subaquius deposition, the tetrapod is interpreted as an amphibian.

quote:

---

Well, maybe you should refute those beliefs rather than attempt to attack the interpretations.

---

Amazing, someone who has a glimps of the real issues! I have not been attacking naturalistic interpretations. My whole point has been that you can have creationary cataclysmic interpretations and evolutionary naturalistic interpretations. And which interpretation you accept depends not upon which side has the largest number of interpretations, but what foundational presuppositions you choose to believe in.

quote:

---

Funny how all the scientists who discovered evolution were YECs before they saw the data. If these presuppositions, as you call them, are so strong isn't it odd how this happened?

---

This is an extremely simplistic view of what happened. It was not the data that caused the naturalists to sometimes abandon their former beliefs, but interpretations of the data. The majority of these people were unaware of the influence of presuppositions on their ideas (as indeed many people on C&E today) and missed the distinction between interpretation and raw data. It was not until the last century that philosophers of science realized that there is no such thing as truly empirical evidence. All evidence is interpreted to some degree.And not all naturalists abandonded the Bible, consider the British Scriptural Geologists of the early 1800s:
Historical Setting | Answers in Genesis
Many of the same arguuments and objections found in Creationary Cataclysmic literature today is found in the works of these 19th century naturalists.AllenThis message has been edited by allenroyboy, 02-24-2005 21:37 AM

quote:

---

They seem to be "analysing" and critizing the Missouri example from the photograph!

---

They are reinterpreting the data as presented by Meert's written description of the outcrop and supported by Meert's photo. If the supposed "paleosol" had any of the real features of a soil, such as the A,B,C and R horizions required for there to be soil, Meert would have noted them and he would have pointed them out in the photo. He didn't and they arn't in the photo.After AiG posted this article, Meert went back and changed his story by relabeling the "paleosol" as "regolith and paleosol development" on the photo [see addendem], but still made no reference to any required soil horizions.

quote:

---

For those computer-chair geologists, regolith is loose rock resting on bedrock.

---

And that is exactly what Meert describes and shows in the photo. Granite on the bottom, regolith [loose rock] in the middle, and sandstone on top.Meert interprets the regolith as "paleosol in development" but gives no physical evidence for any horizions that describe a real soil. So based on Meert's own descriptions and as supported by the photo, this cannot be a paleosol.AllenThis message has been edited by allenroyboy, 02-24-2005 21:43 AM

I discovered that Meert had responded while I was working on this message. I'm editing this to try to reflect his new information.

quote:

---

I went to the Meert site they reference and it has the picture they use but no description.

---

Here is Meert's description (from both the AiG and Meert page):

quote:

---

"If you look at the photo at the top of the page, you will see an excellent example of a well-developed paleosol in Missouri. The paleosol is developed on a granite dated to 1473 Ma and underneath the upper Cambrian-age Lamotte sandstone5. Paleosols are fairly common features throughout the standard geologic column ... Why are paleosols so troubling for ye-creationism?"

---

This description is admittedly brief, but the most important part is missing -- i.e. the description of the 'horizons' that define a soil. No horizions, no soil.ANd when you go back to the reference Meert uses to back up the paleosol claim, it says this:

quote:

---

"There are also rare occurrences of paleosol between the SFM rocks and the overlying Lamotte sandstone."
Revisiting the paleomagnetism of the 1.476 Ga St. Francois Mountains igneous province, Missouri, page 2
Joseph G. Meert, William Stuckey
TECTONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 2, 1007, 10.1029/2000TC001265, 2002

---

That's it! And there no references to back up that assertion. Meert just expects us to believe him that it is a paleosol because he calls it a paleosol.A regolith is not a soil unless one can show evidences of soil horizions. Meert has had a couple years now to supply the missing information while editing the site a couple times.Instead of supplying the required information he tries to distract the readers by diverting attention away from his lack of evidence by claiming that his critics are basing their argument solely on a poor quality photo.Give us the evidence for soil horizons, Meert. Quit blustering.

quote:

---

It also has a lot of other even more interesting paleosols. They don't mention those.

---

I didn't see the original article Meert posted, but I would not be surprised to find that these other 'paleosols' were edited in after the AiG article.But before we move on to something else, this needs to come to closure. Either Meert needs to provide evidence that this particular formation is truely a paleosol or admit that he just thinks it is.After that... whatever.Allen
------
I guess i'll leave it pretty much as it was.AllenThis message has been edited by allenroyboy, 02-25-2005 18:46 AM

quote:

---

Greg {Retallack} is without question, one of the world's leading authority on the subject of paleosols. I suggest you read his book "Soils of the Past".

---

The book is in the local University library and I'll check it out soon.In the mean time I found this on-line:

quote:

---

"Paleosols are diffcult to recognize in early Paleozoic and Precambrian alluvial sedimentary rocks because they lack the large root traces of vascular plants that characterize late Paleozoic and geologically younger paleosols (Retallack,2001a). Only fine rhizome traces are known from Silurian paleosols (Mora and Driese, 1999) and the large root traces and profle form of forest soils are known only as far back as middle Devonian (Retallack, 1997a). Liverwort-like plants may have colonized soils as ancient as mid-Ordovician, but before that time life on land consisted of lichens or microbial scums (Retallack,1992, Retallack, 2000)." pp 373-374

​

Gregory J. Retallack, Nathan D. Sheldon, Monika Cogoini,
R. Douglas Elmore, "Magnetic susceptibility of early Paleozoic and
Precambrian paleosols" Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 198 (2003) 373^380

---

Frankly, I believe that they are hard to recognize simply because they are not paleosols. I believe that a cataclysmic interpretation can be found for all the interpreted paleosols especially in light of tsunami deposition.I did not mean to imply at paleosols should have ALL the horizions found in soils, although it may have sounded like it. Since a soil is defined by means of horizions, then a paleosol should have at least one horizion. Since your did not mention any such horizion in the formation, and one certainly did not appear in the photo, then classifying it as a paleosol is certainly ambiguous and perhaps arbitrary. It appears to be simply an unsorted conglomerate.I find it interesting that in the web page you simply call it a paleosol without providing any evidence. And, in the paper in Tectonics, you assert in a single line with no referrences that it is a paleosol. And now, you say that your source of interpretation is Steve Hasiotis. But even yet there is no explanation why this is a paleosol, it all rests upon an appeal to authority.

quote:

---

Tas' diatribe on my paleosol suggests that one ye-creationist recognized a problem

---

Every Flood cataclysmist that of whom I know, recognizes that paleosol interpretation of various layers cannot fit in a cataclysm setting. Over the pase several years papers have appeared in Creationary literature discussing the issue. Largely it is recognized that the issue is one of interpretation based upon which paradigm you are working within.

quote:

---

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that Hasiotis and I are wrong and that this is not a paleosol, how does that help ye-creationists? There are still thousands of paleosols in the geologic record that meet the criteria you demand.

---

Ideally, Cataclymic geologists would consider and reinterpret each of the "thousands" of paleosols. Realistically, as is being reported in Creationary literature, some claimed paleosols are being reinterpreted. So far, to the satisfaction of the flood cataclysmic geologists, every perported paleosol considered can be reinterpreted within the cataclysmic model. [No one expects evolutionary geologists to be satisfied by the reinterpretation.] Therefore, they expect that as more data is examined, satisfactory interpretations will be found.Allen

quote:

---

I said:
Since the coconino sandstone is considered an subaquius deposition, the tetrapod is interpreted as an amphibian.

​

you say:
First of all, it is not considered to be subaqueous. Second, remember you need to have this amphibian scrambling around on the bottom of an ocean that is depositing several meters of sediment per hour in a current that produces gigantic cross-beds that are forming every few seconds. Do you really expect those tracks to be preserved?

---

1. The context of my quote places this as an interpretation by flood cataclysmists, not evolutionary geologists.2. When a water current in a large bay flows across a sandy bottom, sand waves (similar in formation to subaerial sand dunes) are formed.3. As the water flows up the back of the sandwave it strips the surface of the sandwave by picking up sand grains.4. Once the crest of the sandwave is reached much of the sand falls into the low-energy water on the leeward side of the sand wave.5. On this leeward side of the sandwave, where the crossbedding feature is formed, the sand softly drifts to the crossbedding surface, forming layer after layer.6. In the Flood cataclysm model, an amphibian runs/plods UP the crossbedding surface on the leeward side of the sandwave. [note: ALL fosil traces go UP the crossbedded surface. NO fossil traces go DOWN or ACROSS the crossbedded surface, which is a problem for a subaerial interpretation. "One Way" signs at the bottom of the dunes? ]7. As soon as the tracks are made, they are filled in by the continually falling sand forming more crossbeding layers and instantly preserving the traces.8. When the amphibian reaches the crest of the sandwave it is exposed to the high energy current and is picked up by the current only to be dropped beyond/below the sandwave again. The amphibian then tries to escape up the crossbedding slope again.9. This explanation comes from Austin, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe."10. In a Flood cataclysm model, the flood waters may well be near saturation level and so much of the sand dropped on the crossbedding surfaces will be from the floodwaters as it looses energy and therefor carrying power, rather than just the moving of sand that happens in bays today.

quote:

---

The point was that if presuppositions are so strong, then why did scientists who had presuppositions of YEC so quickly abandon them in the second half of the 19th century? The only interpretation could be that those old presuppositions were so weak that they could not explain the data.

---

The issuse is not how strong the presuppositions were, but rather that many naturalists adopted interpretations without understanding or being aware of the presuppositions. It is likely that most simply did not recognize that there were presuppositions [just as many scientists today]. They did not realize that much "emperical evidence" was actually interpretation based upon persuppositions..

quote:

---

You guys haven't come up with anything new in nearly a century. I am sure that science will change what we think now, but I am also certain that we will NOT go backwards, as you would like.

---

For the most part, there has been no need to come up with anything new because the major arguments remain the same.Its not a matter of going backwards, but rather of getting back on track.AllenThis message has been edited by allenroyboy, 02-26-2005 00:26 AM