Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

Maybe you need to find some evidence that is diagnostic of the flood. I mostly see that you have been presenting evidence that does not support the flood in an exclusive way.In the meantime, the flood does not account for eolian deposits, evaporite deposits, terrestrial trace fossils, etc., etc. These items will demand that you come up with some pretty convincing stuff. You will certainly need something more compelling than the 'clams in the Himalayas' argument. That won't wash around here. Some of us here have studied the geological column for decades, at least. Believe me, your arguments have been forseen and dealt with many times before. In fact, many of your points have been brought up in early geology classes as logic exercises. Yes, I've known people who have problems confronting the uncertainties of geological thought. Some have had a near-violent reactions. Believe it or not, it all makes sense. THat is because it is not based on faith, but upon solid inductive reasoning and testing by independent techniques. I am sorry that you are leaving. In this post, you have expressed a more humble approach, which is (unfortunately), uncommon among our more outspoken YEC contributors; who seem to know, not only all of the science, but every thought and motivation of evolutionists.

More accurately, it is what many YECs think the geological column should be; or what they think we believe it is. I think Moose cleared this one up nicely. It is actually a graphic representation of a timeline. It lays out geologic time in a sequence of relative ages. This is opposed to what we call 'stratigraphic columns' which are actual representations of the geological record at a given location and are often fragmentary. This is a grossly oversimplified viewpoint that is commonly promoted by YECs who contradict themselves by simultaneously discussing the incompleteness of the stratigraphic record.Stratigraphic continuity of units is an ideal situation rarely realized at any given scale. The 'vast, continent-wide layers', supposedly indicative of a flood deposit are broad generalizations that break down on detailed investigation. And no, there is no known way to transport a soil by moving water to a new depositional environment and have it remain a soil. I think that between Moose and Ned this has been done, unless there are some specific questions.

This is exactly what we would expect from seas moving back and forth across the continent. But in the case of these sediments, there were also emergent land masses, which is why we see fluvial and swamp deposits along with beach sands and eolian sand dunes.By the way, it is interesting that an actual time-stratigraphic horizon cuts across the layers that we see megascopically in these photographs. But of course, we probably wouldn't know that if we didn't have evolutionary models to compare with depositional models.

What would kill us is trying to figure out where to start the explanation. I agree. To the layman it looks like a big deposit of sediments haphazardly piled up on the surface of the earth. However, there are patterns that one cannnot ignore. These patterns are created by processes. We can see most of these processes at work today creating identical deposits. However, explaining all of these process, deposits and events is not a trivial task to be carried out on a message board. There are so many nuances and so many exceptions, suffice it to say that a young geologist is probably not really a geologist. I know this is not very satisfactory for you, but that is why you get all of these suggestions to 'get an education.'I have no good solution for you. I know that you will not simply accept what we say and I wouldn't want that either. Most of the time we just hope to shut up the militant YECs or make them think twice before making the same argument. But how do we deal with someone who has legit questions? Yes, but I'm not sure what you mean here. Not really any objections. In fact, I think that asking questions is the best path to knowledge. The problem here is the format of the discussion.

The river doesn't have that much to do with it, actually. All of these sediments were deposited on the continental craton (basement rock) as seas, deserts, beaches, swamps and coral reef environments moved back and forth across it. This is not uncommon in the geological record. There was no major structural disturbance until the uplift of the Colorado Plateau and in that, the region was uplifted as a block. Was the depositional surface even all of that time. No. In detail we can see sand dunes and stream channels, but basically the terrain was fairly flat.

quote:

---

Millions of years of undisturbed layering of various sediments, and then this disturbance of a river cutting through it?

---

Well, why not? The region suffered very little tectonism and remained near sea level until the Tertiary, then it became possible for a canyon to be cut. The region was not near any active plate boundary until that time. Why shouldn't sediments simply be deposited for an extended length of time. By the way there were periods of erosion as well. They simply don't show up well because of the low relief of the region for most of the last 500Ma. Yes. But don't misunderstand. A single unit may be deposited abruptly, though not always. No. The stratigraphic section at that locality was tilted. Normal continental deposition. It's going on right now in many parts of the world. Is there a time limit on this type of sedimentation? I don't know of any. It is occurring now all along the eastern coast of North and South America. Been doing so for some hundred million years, in fact.I think your problem here is not a lack of knowledge so much as simple incredulity. You cannot fathom it, therefor it is impossible.

The short answer is that we do not presuppose a worldwide, biblical flood. We let the evidence lead where it may. The evidence does not give us a whiff of a notion that there was ever such an event. This was discovered by YEC geologists, by the way. If you have a description of a geological feature we should see resulting from such a flood, that does not also support normal mainstream events, then please let us know. Usually, YECs are asking us for what those features might be.

Read closely. I never said this. No. There were many disruptions around the world. Some places, however, remained quiet. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. No. Tectonism is common throughout the geological record... just not everywhere at once. At the GC it didn't happen for many millions of years. Prior to that there was plenty of activity. If you've ever looked at the deepest rocks in the canyon, you would understand. No. You sound confused. And frustrated. I think I have explained this before. If such tectonism were so widespread as you seem to think it should be, then what has happened at the Bahamas Bank in your lifetime? Mountain building? Earthquakes? How can you say that tectonism is a 'recent thing'?

Then you need to explain the references to 'high mountains' before the flood in the bible. So, there can be mist that rises, but no rain. Very interesting. I think you may want to check your version of the bible. Which there is no evidence to support. I guess so. It is very convenient for them that the evidence is gone. This is isostatically prohibited, but other than that, it is very imaginative. Is there evidence of all this tectonism in the bible? Other than the fact that the bible mentions high mountains, YECs have another problem. There is strong evidence that mountain ranges are of very different ages... If so, this doesn't help you. It is also evidence for normal mainstream explanations of the geological record. What you need is something that is diagnostic of the flood. Well, I can probably think of a hundred sharply defined events in the geological record. All of them regional and not worldwide. There is very strong evidence. For instance, coral reefs look identical in morphology and lithologies to many of the ancient reefs, at least back to the middle Paleozoic. Sure. We see deltaic environemnts like the Mississippi River delta in the record; fluvial deposits that are virtually identical to those of the Mesa Verge Group, pelagites and cherts identical to the record; evaporites with dessication features.... Almost any geology text will give examples.

Yes, they are. I see outcrops of the Denver Formation practically every day that look identical to fluvial sediments in the stream cutting through the section (excepting for the trash and construction debris). Do you mean 'thick' or 'deep'? I don't believe there is any practical limit to the depth. Certainly the Mesa Verde fluvial section is hundreds of meters deep. The thickness of any channel can be as little as centimeters.

All I can say is:

quote:

---

Genesis 7:19
"They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."

---

You are being generous here. YECs demand proof of evolution from us. Wouldn't that be a bit hypocritical? Okay, then. THEY need diagnostic evidence. Not the point. The point is that there is no definitive flood sequence in the geological record. There is a reason for this. (regarding coral reefs in the geological record)Yes. And lateral facies changes. And basic morphology.

We've stopped arguing any of this as well. Perhaps I could just point out in as clear as possible terms that while it is very striking to have large areas of apparently conformable sedimentation, it is NOT AT ALL a large swath of the earth, nor is it unusual or unexplained.It is apparent to me that you have decided to pay no attention to our posts and this I consider to be disrespectful. And I am struck by the amazing ability of YECs to dismiss logical arguments by professionals in the field, as simpy 'unbelievable'. You have been treated with a lot of patience here, but your constant, tedious repetition of an argument from incredulity, and numerous trite strawmen, will not cut it any more. Do you really think that geologists have not thought about these things? Do you think it's all just 'made up'?

So, Faith, how's the studying coming along?

quote:

---

Listen, the whole creationist picture of the Flood is that incredible quantities and varieties of Stuff were carried in the flood and deposited in layers.

---

That's it? Not much detail...

quote:

---

There's nothing more unusual about topsoils being carried with water currents than the other sediments, and a bazillion dead creatures along with them all. And topsoils with plant roots it seems to me stand a particularly good chance of being carried intact, not to mention that I've seen soil float, haven't you? It doesn't absorb water rapidly if it's organically rich.

---

You really want to stick with this story? Do you understand that transport is just part of the issue? You also have to pick up the soil from a place where it is attached by roots to the substrate? Then you have to move the mass, intact, by raging floodwaters some uncertain distance enduring storms, waves, and currents. Then you need to have some depositional mechanism to deposit the soil intact (did you ever see a strip of sod wash up on the beach?). Then, if we go by Randy B's story on another thread, you have to deposit the soil with the trees, also intact, in such a way that the trees remain upright as the waters recede so quickly they can carve the Grand Canyon!. Now, call me skeptical, but to me, this is a bunch of, well, ... 'not soil'.

quote:

---

There is no flood we see today that can possibly be used as a model for the Big One that must have dissolved unbelievable quantities of terra firma and redeposited it somehow or other IF IT OCCURRED OF COURSE.

---

That's the whole point, isn't it? How far can you stretch your credulity for this when you have a hard time accepting conformable sedimentation on the top of a stable craton?

quote:

---

And tidal action which would discriminate between layers is a FAR better explanation for what is seen than any time-defined notions of how the strata were formed.

---

Sorry, but tidal action would far better explain the destruction of soils than their discrimination, transport and redeposition. Remember, this is the BIG ONE! Or is it the gentle-violent, wet-dry, rapid-slow, hot-cold flood. At some point, you need to make a decision on this.

quote:

---

It says nothing whatever about my reasoning, only about the assumptions I start from.

---

Ummm, no. If you reason that soils can be picked up, transported by raging currents and then redposited on a far shore, intact; you reason poorly.

quote:

---

My reasoning I daresay is better than half the contributors to this thread.

---

Again, manifestly, no. You chastise JonF for asking about 'igneous rocks' and 'layers' when they were not in your previous post. But this is just an example of how you choose to ignore certain types of data that conflict with your story. You seem almost proud of the fact that you do not know about pertinent geological evidence.

quote:

---

And they sure sound insulted to me.

---

I think 'exasperated' is the proper adjective. For a while, I thought you were attemepting to be reasonable, expressing your need for more eduction in several posts. However, you have made me a fool for believing you. You disregard our posts, tediously repeat unsupported assertions and ignore our questions. What kind of reaction do you expect? When I do the same to you, it's 'goodbye'.Admin: I am sorry if this strays off topic, but the issue has been raised.

True enough. My take is a bit different, however, in that I can understand ignorance and even willful ignorance. The problem with this thread, to me, is the constant repetition of the same argument from incredulity extending for page after page with no elaboration or supporting evidence. There is hardly an acknowlegement of the counter arguments, except to frequenly misrepresent them. The appearance given is one of simple combativeness. I really don't think Faith has paid any attention to our points even though professing a commitment to learning more about geology. Having said all this, in the spirit of avoiding the appearance of more piling on, I will refrain from further comment on this thread, except as technical questions come up.

No sweat, ABB. There's plenty of blame to go around. I'll take my share.