Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

quote:

---

As your links hint, this thread is not about the Flood, but I brought up the underwater example in answer to someone else's originating it somewhere in this discussion and underwater formation of sedimentary layers has to be acknowledged as evidence for it.

---

Adding to crash's post, sediments laid down by water are interspersed with sediments that could only develop out of water. Paleosols are layers of topsoil, the stuff that farmers plant crops on. Topsoil can not be formed under water, it needs to be exposed to air in order to develop. When topsoil is covered by other sediments and is compressed into rock it is called a paleosol. If I see paleosols in between lake sediments this tells me that the water had to disappear for quite some time before it reappeared. This is totally inconsistent with a one-time global flood.

quote:

---

But underwater formation of sedimentary layers is evidence for underwater formation of sedimentary layers, which is consistent with the Flood as an explanation for the formation of the geologic column. CONSISTENT with is the operative word.

---

The problem that you keep ignoring is that between these layers created by water there are layers that could only form in the presence of air, such as paleosols which I mention in mssg #60. This is INCONSISTENT with a flood creating the geologic column. I agree that sediments requiring an aquatic environment is consistent with a flood, but when the layers alternate between aquatic and non-aquatic sedimentation it is inconsistent with a one-time flood event.

quote:

---

Well you're all very stuck in your preconceptions. Time for another break.

---

The only preconception I have is that the same geologic processes in action today were in action throughout Earth's history.You are the one who seems to be carrying preconceptions, most notably that a Global Flood HAD to occur no matter what the evidence says.

quote:

---

Their great numbers, their great dispersion all over the earth, the way they are found in layers everywhere -- all suggest a single huge event. I suppose you could jerryrig an explanation out of multiple local events if necessary.

---

No, quite the opposite. The sheer number of fossils does not allow them to all be alive at once. One example of this is the Karoo formation in Africa which contains an estimated 800 billion fossils.""Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood."Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded."From: Schadewald, Robert, 1982. Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer. Creation/Evolution 9: 12-17.

quote:

---

The unscientific illogical unreasonable unfair way this argument is conducted by the evolutionists here is quite revealing. Say, what's the point of having this discussion at all if you know it can't be true? You guys are SO not open to seriously thinking about anything that challenges your beliefs it's no wonder creationists stay away from this place. I'm continuing only for whatever fun there is to be had before it's no longer fun. Arguing against a stacked deck loses its charm fairly soon.

---

IrishRockHound was commenting that the Global Flood can't be true BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE. That evidence is a stratified geologic column containing sediments from an aquatic environment between layers from non-aquatic sedimentation (eg paleosols which you continue to ignore). If the flood created the geologic column then why do we have evidence of sand dunes and topsoil between layers laid down by water?

quote:

---

The sediments explain nothing because surface disruptions over a billion years would prevent their ever building up to any appreciable depth let alone the miles of it we know. This is obvious and the wit deficit here is on the side that can't see it.

---

It is not obvious. You have to do a little better than that. We have limestone layers thousands of meters thick. Limestone accumlates at a rate of a few centimeters per year. We find these types of layers on land.We have paleosols which are from topsoil that takes long periods to develop. How does Flood Theory explain paleosols found between other layers supposedly laid down by a flood?To me it is obvious that these layers took a long time to accumulate. It was also obvious to creationists in the early 1800's. It was so obvious that they finally had to admit that the earth was millions of years old, if not billions. This happened well before Darwin wrote "Origin of Species", the origination of the theory of evolution. If it was so obvious to those creationists, why isn't it obvious to you?

quote:

---

I just look at the layers all over the world and think how they couldn't have built up gradually over huge huge spans of time because too many normal processes would interfere,

---

I understand your position, but you offer no evidence that normal processes would interfere. All we have is your belief. Science can't work if all we are working with is a personal belief; science requires objective evidence, not subjective opinion.I can simply refute your claim by referencing my own subjective beliefs, that the earth looks old and these layers took a long time accumulate. The difference is that I can cite objective information, such as current day observations, radiometric dating, and simple chemistry. You have none of the above. Instead, you rely on faith, a faith in the historicity of Genesis.

quote:

---

Just see no way a few feet of homogeneous sediment marked off sharply from completely different sediments could have been laid down over millions of years, and really haven't seen an argument on this thread that's at all a convincing explanation. Yes I know I'm repeating myself. None of the answers given here do it.

---

No one is claiming that it took millions of years for these sediments to be laid down. What we are claiming is that it took thousands of years in the case of limestone and other features, and that these features were laid down millions of years ago. Distinct difference.

quote:

---

It is observation, not subjective opinion. About 90% of this conversation is hampered by such confusions on your side. You assume personal belief because that's how you view creationists. You know nothing about me. I believed in evolution for most of my life. You have to stick to the actual discussion.

---

Well, let's look at what you said in another message: So, the Bible is true, no matter what. If the evidence goes against what the Bible says the evidence is wrong. This all pins on this absolute trust, otherwise known as faith. Why should science rely on this faith instead of taking the evidence at face value? If there is no evidence for a global flood, and if all of the evidence argues against it, then why assume that a global flood occured?

quote:

---

Just witnessing the destructive effects of normal processes as we encounter them all the time everywhere on earth, the idea that such neat parallel layers could have built up over great lengths of time makes no sense.

---

But it does make sense. Where does the sediment go when these destructive events occur? Into valleys and low places where erosion occurs slowly. What happens when you get thick layers of sediment? The bottom layers lithify making them more difficult to erode. It makes complete sense.

quote:

---

All that horizontal stratification could not have been produced on dry land.

---

All of that horizontal stratification could not have been produced underwater either. This is the problem. Lithified sand dunes, complete with scorpion tracks, could not have been produced underwater. We find these types of horizontal stratifications in between layers that were produced underwater. This requires two separate "floods". We also have areas that require long time periods, such as the development of soil (sub-aerial) and limestone (sub-aquatic).

quote:

---

I had just said the world LOOKS like it was drowned in a huge flood.

---

If you are open-minded, what would falsify this theory? What evidence would falsify a single flood creating the geologic column as we see it today?

quote:

---

The overall column, however, with its neat straight strata, everywhere on earth, continues overwhelmingly to suggest formation in water, and at the very least continues to defy explanation on any slow-buildup theory, especially OUTSIDE of water.

---

I think we have already said that the strata are not "neat" nor are they "everywhere on earth". There are places where pre-Cambrian rock is laid bare, rock that has been around for hundreds of millions of years (600+ million). The strata in other areas only reflects a period of a few million years with some periods of that era completely missing. Only in very, very rare cases do we find areas with a complete sedimentary history of the entire earth. One of those places is in North Dakota. Even then, some layers are extremely shallow compared to the same strata from that period found elsewhere.Since the Grand Canyon has come up quite a few times I thought I would post the following image (from http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/cowley/GCandMoon.html). The first thing you will notice is that the bottom most strata are not horizontal but tilted upwards.

quote:

---

I am arguing from observations, most recently observations of the diagram posted by Loudmouth of the Geological Column as shown in the Grand Canyon.

---

That diagram was just that, a diagram. It is a conceptualized drawing that does not represent the actual thicknesses of each layer throughout the entire area. I am sorry if there is any misunderstanding about the diagram, but it does not imply that the layers are of the same thickness in every area.

quote:

---

How are my objections to the ridiculousness of the millions of years geology has assigned to a layer of a few feet of limestone followed by millions of years of another layer of a few feet of limestone followed by millions of years of a layer of a few feet or so of shale etc etc etc "flood-based?"

---

Limestone is a rock that is created in still waters. This is why it has uniform thickness. It also accumulates at a very slow rate, as has been mentioned several times. Also, not every aquatic environment is conducive to limestone accumulation meaning that each limestone layer represents an on again/off again deposition.Firstly, why should a still water environment erode limestone?Secondly, why would this limestone be eroded if it is covered up by other sediments later on, such as river sediments?

To all:I have done a few searches but have come up empty. Does anyone have access to pictures of strata that is not uniform in thickness across a cross cut? I think this would help the debate.

Faith,Like Crashfrog, I thought you were a "he" as well. I always like it when my assumptions get turned on their heads, contrary to what you may think. Anyway, while you have been aggressive I think we can all agree that you have not been insulting, which is always a good thing.Getting to the topic at hand, your whole argument seems to stem from your own incredulity. To paraphrase: "I can't see how these sediments could be around without being eroded, therefore an old earth can't be true." I am sorry but reality does not bend to what you think it should do or should not do. There is no reason that these sediments could not have stuck around for very, very long time periods, especially other sediments are stacked on top of them. And, btw, they are being eroded. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example. Can you explain why all of sediments in the GC area have not been eroded away just as they are in the Grand Canyon itself? It is a rhetorical question, but I think you get the gist.