Anglagard states:
In this supposed global flood there is one environment, an ocean.
Joman replies:
It is an global size ocean of flood waters increasing and abating.
Within the flood waters there wouldn't have been any uniformity of conditions. What you see today is what you would expect from such a huge and horrendous event. Every bizarre condition imaginable occurred and evidence of this is what is found everywhere upon the surface of the earth.
First, no one I have ever heard of flatly states that water rising and falling simultaneously causes deposition and erosion at the same location at the same time as one would need to given the huge number of geologic unconformities. That water rising and having its salt content diluted creates interbeded evaporates. That liquid water at all creates loess, glacial moraines, tills, U shaped valleys, batholiths, tuffs, breccia, volcanic bombs, rhyolites, etc. that are found under and above sediment deposits worldwide. Your assertion that some global flood caused all geologic deposits is against anything remotely resembling common sense, not to mention science.
You still haven’t answered how water creates an Aeolian deposit? Just repeating water does not create uniform conditions, which by the way -- is not what is observed, does not answer how water creates deposits that can only be formed by wind.
here is no desert for thick interbedded evaporites,
There are no appropriate mechanisms able to deposit such beds of evaporites in deserts. But the flood was able to deposit them. That the land in question is today a desert is due to climate patterns arising after the flood.
So you are saying that Badwater in Death Valley, or at Quemado Lake in New Mexico, where anyone can go and see salt crystals forming in water (which is far saltier than the ocean) before their eyes, does not exist in creationist fantasyland? The mechanism for forming salt is called evaporation. That is why salt, anhydrite, gypsum, borax, etc. are called “evaporite deposits,” because they were formed by evaporation. Do you know what evaporation is? One may consider it the opposite of rain.
Many, if not most, of these thick salt deposits were caused by shallow seas which were continuously subject to evaporation and refilling. For an answer to your “no appropriate mechanisms” see
Site Not Configured | 404 Not Found where the mechanism for depositing such beds is appropriately explained.
no ice sheets for glacial deposits,
The winter of the flood would've been severe and of such proportions so as to develope the ice sheets that are thought to represent ages of formation and retreat.
What is the physics of ice being rained upon at the rate of 15 feet an hour look like. Hint: water. After such a flood , the ice packs could not have formed in the 4500 years postulated considering the low rate of precipitation at the poles, and they would have not shown all those up to 600,000 annual layers.
no dry deserts for wind-formed aeolian deposits.
Also air and ice are not water, they deposit differently. How they deposit can be observed right now.
So, provide significant global examples.
Look at the present climate roughly 30 degrees north and south of the equator. There are deserts there where wind blown sediments and evaporite deposits are forming right now.
How does a global flood create aeolian deposits?
There would be enormous supplies of sand after a global flood. Many features of dunes in water and in air are identical.
Some features are similar but not all are identical. Among other things wind deposits tend to have a frosted appearance around the grains and crossbed at greater than 10 degrees. Also sandstones that are deposited by wind do not have marine fossils.
How does a flood preserve delicate interbedded structures with one layer full of burrows, repeated over and over again for 15,000 layers?
You must prove that they are burrows. But, the interbedded part is possible in a flood that involves an enormous variety of depositional circumstances.
There are creatures under the ocean that burrow into the sand, what they make today is just like what is observed in the fossil record. Nothing else makes the structures seen by the burrows today, so it is a pretty good idea that nothing else made the structures seen as burrows yesterday.
The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale. The sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on turbidite deposits. Turbidites are deep water deposits in which each sand layer is deposited in a brief period of time, by a submarine "landslide" (I am trying to avoid jargon here) and the shale covering it is deposited over a long period of time.
That the shale took a long time to deposit is an assumption.
And, it's an unresonable scenario isn't it? For 15,ooo ages of time a cycle of 7,5oo identical ages is repeated? No, it's more reasonable to believe that the cyclic structure of the layers is due to a local depositional enviroment within a massive global flood that sorted out the sand and the clay in the pattern as found. Otherwise you'd expect me to think that for a long age only sand under deep water was deposited, followed by a long age of only a particular clay and that this pattern was cyclic. Isn't it ridiculous? A age of deep water followed by an age of shallow for 7500 identical ages? It's flood waters that explains the beds of homogenous depositional materials.
Shale is made up of what people who know about geology call small particles. The small particles take a long time to settle in water. Sand is made up of what people who know about geology call bigger particles. The bigger particles do not take as long a time to settle in water. Sometimes when the depositional environment changes, like after a big storm, a layer of the bigger particles goes on top of the smaller particles, just like we see in river deltas today.
Please read a textbook on freshman physical geology before seeking to overturn the entire science.
For the non-geologist who is reading this this means that the burrows are in the shales (which take a long time to be deposited) so the animals would have lots of time to dig their burrows.
That they are burrows is an assumption.
Considering it can actually be seen today, it is not an assumption on the same level as rain causes evaporation or breccia forms underwater.
The sandstones are the catastrophic deposit which covers and fills in the burrows with sand. The fact that there are no burrows in the sand proves that the sand was deposited rapidly.
7,500 catastrophic and rapid depositions? Each followed by, 7500 peaceful depositions of clay? I don't think this is a scientifically rational explaination.
There is a completely rational explanation, it is called “time.” Also, the sand was locally catastrophic to the poor little burrowers.
I pointed out that if the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in this area is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited. Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited.
Probably, much faster than that.
No, much, much slower, if common sense is a consideration.
The problem is that the animals which made the burrows mentioned above, need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down.
I don't believe they are burrows.
This is a science thread, not faith and belief. Your beliefs unsupported by evidence are unimportant here, provide evidence that they are not burrows.
That's just one piece of geology no YEC can explain or BS their way out of, there are many thousands more.
It's quite weak in my opinion. Especially so due to the ridiculousness of the nonflood scenario that was presented. A scenario that incorprates an unknown cyclic mechanism operating like clockwork for 7,500 cyclic ages over an enormous span of time.
This is a science thread, not faith and belief. Your beliefs unsupported by evidence are unimportant here, provide evidence that there are no cyclic formations in geology. While you are at it, try explaining the Castile formation, it has 200,000 couplet layers of calcite, anhydrite, and algae fossils. Geoscientists already have explanations supported by evidence concerning these formations. What, other than just saying "no," are your explanations?
Could you define or provide an example of a "high purity" deposit?
I would consider anything around 99% pure to be high purity.
summary:
My point is that what we find globally (not locally) upon the surface of the earth today corresponds to the consequences of a global flood. No local scenario's, such as The Haymond beds, the Grand Canyon, corresponds to the global nature of the flood. They only correspond to local scenario's occurring within the global flood. To prove that a "global" flood occurred requires looking at global effects. the complexity of "local" scenario's producing varied and often bizarre geologic formations which don't conform to hard fast rules is the norm for a global flood enviroment in the same way that local conditions of climate don't correspond to the global climate scenario. What would you expect to see after the waters of a horrendous global flood had occurred? You'd see a complex array of geologic anomalies in profusion mixed in with much larger geologic formations mixed in with some even larger geologic formations.
What most on this site are proposing to do is apply local anomalies of sedimentation to global issues to which they can't rationally apply.
Joman.
So we would see a global flood deposit Aeolian sandstone, layers of evaporates several thousand feet thick, volcanic deposits that only form in air, and glacial deposits? And all of these deposits, in many cases, found buried under thousands of feet of sediment?
Please read that freshman geology textbook.
Edited by anglagard, : minor edit of boxes
Edited by anglagard, : add the phrase unsupported by evidence after your beliefs
Edited by anglagard, : change evaporate to evaporite in a few instances
™ Version 4.2
