Stratigraphy and Creationism

Those layers aren't actually vertical... you're just interpreting the strata incorrectly because of your indoctrination into materialistically-biased uniformitarian propaganda.What you need is to get you some God-goggles. Then all will be revealed.

There, see how easy that was?NEXT!!lol[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 11-07-2003][This message has been edited by roxrkool, 11-19-2003]

It so "blatantly obvious" that no YECs have EVER been able to point to these elusive flood deposits.It so "blatantly obvious" that no professional geologist has ever found anything even remotely suggestive of a global flood. Nice try. You think you've found an out by suggesting the flood may or may not be responsible for all the geologic record, however, the fact is, if the geologic column is not entirely the result of a global flood, you've just increased the problems one hundred-fold.The simplest explanation is that the flood resulted in everything we see today. Fine. Now you have to explain why there are buried sections that are identical to surficial deposits we see today, such as dunes, river systems, lakes, soils, alluvial, erosive, etc.I suppose you could say, "well the flood is not responsible for that stuff." Okay. So did the flood happen before or after? No matter what you say, there will always be a problem with surficial deposits - because they occur THROUGHOUT the entire geologic record.Or you can say, "well you're just interpreting it wrong." Fine. You interpret it and then explain how no one has ever observed mud cracks forming on the ocean floor, or paleosols, or sand dunes like the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone that contains terrestrial fossils and many foot prints?SO if the flood is not responsible for everything, then we are now looking for a smaller section? You still have to correlate it globally, however, and then you have to account for all the thousand of feet of strata both below and above your supposed flood section.Not so easy. Which is why no YEC geologist is willing to step up to the plate. We're still waiting... two hundred years later...

Well doesn't that statement speak volumes!!! lolApparently, those God-goggles have opaque lenses.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 02-18-2004]

Shocking!

Because it was the biggest storm in the history of the planet... assuming the planet is 6,000 years old. It moved continents, carved the Grand Canyon, and built the mountains. Geology is concerned with the history of this planet, why shouldn't we be interested in finding the flood layers? Maybe because the lack of flood layers is a gaping black hole in the whole flood theory? So you're saying it never rained before the flood? If water flowed out of the ground and flooded the surface every day for 2000 years, where are those sediments? Point them out. Take a shot at it. What do you think you would see?

According to Northrup:Archean rocks are the result of the initial creation when all the world was underwater.Proterozoic rocks are the result of massive drainage of the uplifting continents.The flood is responsible for the Cambrian through about the Pennsylvanian.Continental break-up starting in the Mid-Mesozoic, which results in glaciation from the Mesozoic to the Cenozoic.yada, yada, yada...This is specific in a creationist context, and apparently to you, but falls woefully short of what is required by mainstream scientists.Northrup talks about flood deposits, tidal wave deposits, wind deposits, landslide deposits,... but fails to name a single one.THAT is what we want to know. What FORMATIONS represent Northrup's tidal waves, and so on? Until creationists can do that, their flood theory won't be acknowledged by anyone.