REAL Flood Geology

Every one of your bullets is much better supported and better explained by deep time geology. Unfortunately each probably deserves to be a topic but itself.You might want to pick the one you think is the strongest and start a topic and prepare to defend it.There many geological structures that falsify a Young Earth such as chalk formations, diatomaceous chert, salt domes, large emplacement of basalt, basalt layers with paleosols, multiple iceage remnants, pot holes, exclusive fossil layering, etc.However the best geological structure that demonstrates Old Deep Time Earth are Angular Unconformities, which I have yet to find any YEC'er provide a reasonable explanation.The beauty of Angular Unconformities is that they are common, you can walk right up and view one first hand, you do not need a microscope, you do not have to accept nebulous decay or deposition rates, etc. - in short they can be appreciated via direct sensory perception.There is topic here on this subject which unfortunately has been ignored by any YEC advocate. Message 1

How about mountain ranges would all appear to be the same age?

Nice pictures! I work and live on lake Pend Oreille which is just downstream of the ice dam that created Lake Missoula. There are giant ripple marks in numerous places in the area.However this flood was a catastrophic failure of a ice dam creating a large flow of water, ice and debris. The combined flow rate was 10 times the combined flow of all the rivers of the world.Would a global flood resulting from sustained rain and "breaking up of the fountains of the great deep" be different - more like filling up a bathtub?

What is the prevailing YEC theory on basalt flows, are they mostly pre, during or post flood?I always like to ask YEC'ers, what deposition in the picture below from Yellowstone, represents the flood deposit?Notice the colonnades in the basalt flow and lack of pillows or palagonite matrix. The flows were in air not underwater. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Since all mountains were covered wouldn't you expect to find a consistent upper deposition layer that could be tracked all around the world? The lower layers maybe be mixed and complex due to local flooding from the rising waters as lakes and seas broke over their local impoundments. But after the waters rose to cover all of earth and the entrained sentiment dispersed you would expect to see a layer of similar material all over globe. Since only a few thousand years has passed this layer would be close to the top.Also wouldn't one expect to find this layer at the ice caps? Oh wait why didn't the ice caps just float away since ice is lighter than water.
Conversely Joman in post 8 listed this item. It would seem to me that would be the last thing you would expect. Purity would require an isolated system. A world wide flood would mix, stir and disperse. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

The "flood occurred which impacted all peoples". Yes, but the impact was that they were supposedly drowned - not very good for passing down oral myths. There are numerous flood stories (actually not as many is often thought) because as early human transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculture they settle close to the rich land near rivers which unfortunately is also a flood zone.

These two bullets in your list are contradictory. How can a global process create "complex" structures but also create large deposits of extreme purity.Large sedimentary deposits of extreme purity such as limestone, chalk, sandstone, mudstone, diatomaceous chert require isolation such as a large sedimentary basin.

Talking about pure deposits we haven't even started talking about relatively pure deposits of tiny fossil animals such as:

Diatomaceous Chert and Shales (large deposits of these)

Chalk

Fossiliferous Limestone

I am not up on the cutting edge creationist theories but what is their stance on sand. There are vast deposits of sand throughout the world - such a old red Sandstone, sandstone deposits of the southwest and the huge unconsolidated deposits of the various deserts. Was sand created in creation week in situ?If the flood occurred just a few thousand years after creation week would not flood geology exhibit very little sand deposits.

Just so I understand. You are saying that Flood Geology would predict that each subsequent layer in the Grand Canyon (or any undusturbed geological column) should have increasing Specific Gravity.Is that correct?

Thanks for the correction, for some reason I was thinking from top to bottom.From your listSandstone 2.32
Limestone 2.61
Granite 2.69Since we have Tapeats Sandstone towards the bottom and the heavier Kaibab Limestone (complete with course brachiopod and sea lilies fossils) at the top are we done here?Has Joman single handedly invalidated the flood model?Along those line how does "hydrological sorting" explain sea lilies, and sea shells at the top of the canyon?http://www.kaibab.org/images/gc_crino.htm
http://www.kaibab.org/tr951/gc951207.htmHow can Flood Geology explain the often common occurrence of sea shell, coral, and sponge fossils at the top of mountains and the upper rim of the canyon?
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This thread needs a bump and suffers from the lack of YEC input.Following up on one of the ideas sparked by Jomans specific gravity hypothesis.How can Flood Geology explain the common occurrence of sea shell, coral, and sponge fossils at the upper end of many geological columns.Taking the Grand Canyon as an example, I have collected sea shell fossils at 8000 ft on the north rim of the Canyon. A geology based on the Global Flood would predict that immobile marine fossils should be found in the lower levels.Many other examples exist such as the Rocky Mountain range. For example, the famous Burgess Shale in Yoho national park sits at about 8000 ft elevation with 10's of thousands of feet of sendiments below.

Most YEC that I know, or have read about, claim that the formations that make up the Grand Canyon were formed from sediments of the flood. The marine fossils at the top have to present a problem.

Fair enough.In my experience I have yet to find any flood geology that provides satisfying explanations for the real problematic issues such as:

Angular Unconformities

Large pure sediment deposits

Large deposits of nanofossils

Marine Fossils at the top of sediment layers

Clear evidence of bioturbation, animal tracks, mud cracks, rain drop impressions in large exposed sedimentary profiles like the Grand Canyon

Huge deposits of erosional products such as loess, sand and gravel.

Large and deep pothole formations - a vertical cave formed from the abrasion of small stones caught in a river whirlpool. http://home.wanadoo.nl/...ika/Bourke's%20Luck%20Potholes.jpg

​

buz writes:

​

I have the Grand Canyon video of ICR on flood geology relative to the canyon. It made sense to me as a layman as I viewed the video and listened to their views on it. I also have their Mt. St Helens video in which they applied it to a flood model, et al and as a layman some arguments in it made logical sense to me.

​

I have seen these to. They are convincing because they actively filter the evidence and lead you down the garden path - so to speak.

​

You have probably heard the old saw about "when things get confusing follow the money". Look at industries such as mineral, gemstone and oil exploration. They don't give a rats ass about the YEC/OE argument. They go with what works. If YEC had any shred of credibility they would be using YEC geology and YEC geologist would be in demand. They are not.

​

I always thought that there was a gold mine (excuse the pun) in starting a "Christian" mineral or oil exploration company that promoted using YEC methods to discovery, and which consequently actively sought out investment from the "Christian community".

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

One problem that the YEC overlook is that these deposited materials are prior erosional products.No proposed action of the fairy tale flood breaks down solid mineral rock into loess, sand or gravel.The few thousands years between the supposed flood and the creation week is woefully inadequate to create the vast quantities of the eroded material we see.