Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

Did you or did you not claim that the fact that sedimentary rock usually forms from sediments deposited underwater was "good evidence" for the Flood ?

quote:

---

The very EXISTENCE of the amazing worldwide abundance of fossils is EXCELLENT evidence for a worldwide flood.

---

Rubbish. It's not even significant evidence BEFORE you take inot account the aspects of the fossil record that the Flood fails to explain. Moreover by making this very claim you implicitly admit that you ARE attributing a huge amount of the geological record to the Flood despite starting your post by implicitly denying making such a claim.As to the rate of sedimentation, in Lake Suigetsu it seems to have varied between 1.2 to 0.62 mm per year (http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm ) - but that's sediment. Lithification of sediments often involves compaction so the actual amount of rock that sediment would produce would be lower still.And how can you say that unspecified "effects" of the Flood must have lasted a millenium ? What "effects" and why would they have persisted so long ? And any YEC timescale already has serious problems with dating the Flood (a straight reading of the Bible puts it at around - or even after - the time the Pyramids were built) so adding significant effects lastign a milennium only makes things far worse for your case.Also I must poitn out that I am not necessarily claiming that any particular formation must have required millions of years to be deposited - but that the geological column must have taken that sort of time period to reach its curretn state.

quote:

---

underwater formation of sedimentary layers has to be acknowledged as evidence for it.

---

quote:

---

No, it isn't. Evidence of water in once place at one time is not evidence of water in all places at the same time.

---

Nobody said it was.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.Some of you here seem to apply evidence way outside its relevance. I haven't done that, you have.Do you think that the underwater formation of these sediments is evidence for the geologic column? Hey, it might be. I could be evidence for both models at the same time. The problem with it as evidence for the Geo Column is that you have to claim it was formed underwater too, like these sediments, and if all of it wasn't, then you have to have a separate explanation for the parts that didn't form that way.

It's consistent with everything; hence, useless. It's consistent with a theory that we know can't be true, so what's the point of pointing it out? "Evidence for the geologic column"? No, the "evidence" for the geologic column is that I can drive a mile from my apartment and see part of it. The column is there, no question. Which, of course, we do. The sediments themselves explain how they got there, if you have the wit to see.

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:

---

Did you or did you not claim that the fact that sedimentary rock usually forms from sediments deposited underwater was "good evidence" for the Flood ?

---

It is very good evidence, yes. Excellent evidence. That such sedimentary layers form under water in observable time is excellent evidence consistent with the Flood. As I've pointed out, if you can show that they took millions of years to form -- or even ten years, then it would not be such good evidence without further considerations.

quote:

---

The very EXISTENCE of the amazing worldwide abundance of fossils is EXCELLENT evidence for a worldwide flood.

---

Yes, it certainly is. It's terrific evidence. Local events don't do such phenomena justice. Fossils need special conditions to form and for them to appear in such extravagant abundance throughout the earth's crust is definitely fine evidence for a worldwide catastrophe capable of preserving their forms.

quote:

---

Rubbish. It's not even significant evidence BEFORE you take inot account the aspects of the fossil record that the Flood fails to explain. Moreover by making this very claim you implicitly admit that you ARE attributing a huge amount of the geological record to the Flood despite starting your post by implicitly denying making such a claim.

---

I didn't deny it at all. I simply didn't want to argue it because I find the arguments tedious and futile as this one is rapidly becoming.I try to argue it fairly. I think the Geologic Time Table is ridiculous, that the evidence for it is nonsense, and I gave one reason, that you have to imagine a perfectly unruffled atmosphere for the buildup of very slow horizontal sedimentations all over the world over billions, even hundreds, of years. I still think that is an excellent objection to the idea but I got a bunch of objections about local sedimentary buildup etc, which I never really answered but I might yet try. Somebody answered (yourself I think) that in fact it is considered to have been formed under water, so that's a whole other ballpark. Then somebody else said no, only a small part of it is considered to have formed under water. I still don't know how its formation is normally explained.If I reject the Geologic Time Table then I must have other reasons for the phenomena of the strata and fossils, correct? I personally believe the Flood happens to be an excellent explanation that covers most of the facts very nicely, but theoretically it doesn't HAVE to be the Flood, perhaps there are other explanations.

quote:

---

As to the rate of sedimentation, in Lake Suigetsu it seems to have varied between 1.2 to 0.62 mm per year (http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm ) - but that's sediment. Lithification of sediments often involves compaction so the actual amount of rock that sediment would produce would be lower still.

---

Thank you. I will ponder that information.

quote:

---

And how can you say that unspecified "effects" of the Flood must have lasted a millenium ? What "effects" and why would they have persisted so long ?

---

Offer your own time frame if a millennium seems extreme to you. Seems to stand to reason that it would take time for the water to recede to normal levels for starters, then that it would take the saturated land a long time to dry out. It must have caused drastic effects all over the earth that took time to recover to the present condition. The actual evidence of the upthrust layers that formed high mountains is that the upthrusting occurred AFTER the event (since the already-formed layers are quite visible there) -- either after the Flood or after the billions of years of deposition of the Geologic Column according to one's belief, so it appears that perhaps the Flood could explain the disturbances of the tectonic plates that moved the continents and created the mountains. One would also expect a very long time of settling and compressing of the deposited sediments as they dry out, don't you think? How long would it take for layers of wet sediments a mile deep to dry out would you suppose?

quote:

---

And any YEC timescale already has serious problems with dating the Flood (a straight reading of the Bible puts it at around - or even after - the time the Pyramids were built) so adding significant effects lastign a milennium only makes things far worse for your case.

---

Why? Nothing I've suggested would interfere with the building of Pyramids. The land would simply be still a bit damp in the deeper parts and perhaps still settling.

quote:

---

Also I must poitn out that I am not necessarily claiming that any particular formation must have required millions of years to be deposited - but that the geological column must have taken that sort of time period to reach its curretn state.

---

Given the slow deposition rates in the bodies of water that would follow, yes, and I would think you also have to posit VERY deep water for all those strata to build up in, whatever parts are considered to have been formed in water anyway.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-18-2005 13:04 AM

Oh? Is that why it's impossible to grow food on planet Earth? Because the wind keeps blowing the soil all around?

I've done that, with redbeds full of gypsum layers. Shall we start on buried fossil reefs that are hundreds of feet thick and thousands of feet below the surface next? Or laminated sediments like in the Delaware basin that have 7000 feet of alternating shale and sand layers less than a quarter-inch thick?

What do you mean by "extravagant abundance"? Such a vague term can only mean there is much more than expected by some other means. What is your reference value? What number of fossils would you predict for hundreds of millions of years of geological history without a flood, and why would you predict this number?Because, honestly, it's pretty darn rare that I ever hear anyone talk about the the "extravagant abundance" of the fossil record - except, interestingly enough, for animals that live in conditions conducive to rapid burial by ordinary means.

Hi, I think one of the things that Paul was considering here would be the question of who would have been around to build the pyramids if the Flood happened according to biblical chronology.According to the OT Flood myths everything outside of the Ark died, so who built the pyramids?Brian.

quote:

---

I gave one reason, that you have to imagine a perfectly unruffled atmosphere for the buildup of very slow horizontal sedimentations all over the world over billions, even hundreds, of years.

​

Oh? Is that why it's impossible to grow food on planet Earth? Because the wind keeps blowing the soil all around?

---

There are dust storms in the desert West very frequently. That is also the case in Texas and Oklahoma, you know, the Dust Bowl? Sometimes they threaten crops in agricultural areas too. It is also the case in the huge desert areas of the Middle East. Dunes are constantly reforming from wind effects. Then, let's see, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes do their share of rearranging the earth's surface. But wind wasn't the only disturbance I mentioned. The occasional tsunami would certainly unsettle a sedimentary layering. One a century ought to do in the expectations of the geological column in those parts of the world I would think. Then there is erosion of course, that can move great hunks of land at once. You get a fire that denudes the land, perhaps, and erosion and landslides follow. At least every few years in some places. Those would certainly interfere with all attempts at slow buildup in those areas. And so on and so forth. In a billion years all that needs to happen to destroy the slow buildup of the geologic column is weather and earthquake disasters even once a century in different parts of the world, and we see them more frequently than that. Growing food goes on in the quiet area and in between disasters like floods that cover the fields near rivers. All you have to do is think about the actual real disturbances we know about that occur every day and put them in context of billions of years to see that slow buildup of sediments to any appreciable depth isn't going to be possible even in one corner of this very active planet, and yet life goes on just fine. YOu simply need to develop an imagination that is true to the facts instead of making them up. Just because your garden didn't get flooded this year there is no reason to think it might not be flooded out every couple hundred years you know, forcing you to start over. Happens all the time in the best of neighborhoods.

Well so you're flip-flopping between repeating your claim and denying you ever said it. Yet we still haven't seen any good reason to think that such aa superficial look at geology COULD be good - let alone excellent - evidence for any such claim.Why can't local events do justice to the fossils found ? Since some fossils are the result of burial by sandstorms must we assume a global sandstorm ? If some fossils form in anoxic lakes must we assume that the entire planet was an anoxic lake ? And why talk about "extravagant abundance" without producing any numbers at all ? Underwater mudslides are quite good at producing fossils - how many of those happen over the entire planet in the course of a year ? How many are needed to explain that part of the fossil record ? How many would be "extravagant abundance" ?Now you certainly haven't tried to argue fairly that mainstream geology is wrong. Your main arguments have relied on making things up because you're too lazy to actually look at the evidence. And you can't even manage to remember that what I explicitly said that some deposition occurred on land - nor that one of your reasons for rejecting mainstream geology was an assumption that ALL sedimentary deposition occurred on land !And I'm not surprised that you don't understand the problem the Pyramids pose for your dating. Not only do you need a huge workforce to actually build them, but you also need the rock (which according to you shoudl still be soggy mud). But it gets worse - the famous Gizeh Pyramids are not the start of the development of the Pyramiud - they are the height of Pyramid building. They are preceded by earlier attempts which were developments of the still earlier Mastaba tombs.And I will finally point out that depth of water does NOT equate to the rate of sedimentation.

quote:

---

As I've pointed out, if you can show that they took millions of years to form -- or even ten years, then it would not be such good evidence without further considerations.

​

I've done that, with redbeds full of gypsum layers. Shall we start on buried fossil reefs that are hundreds of feet thick and thousands of feet below the surface next? Or laminated sediments like in the Delaware basin that have 7000 feet of alternating shale and sand layers less than a quarter-inch thick?

---

If you like. What is the evidence that they took millions of years to form? Things in actuality take a lot less time than evolutionists tend to estimate. But what is your evidence?

It doesn't take nearly that long to form the sediments. And after they become stone, and are buried, they're resistant to the effects you mention.There's all manner of places on Earth where sediments might deposit without the risk of being blown or washed away. Like here:Or here:Or here:Somehow, despite your claims that the atmosphere keeps sediments from settling, we observe them settling just find almost everywhere in the world. And we aren't choked to death by all the sediment you claim must be in the atmosphere. Look, buddy, I'm the one looking around at a world full of settling sediments; you're the one so certain that you can't keep dirt in any one place for any length of time. But somehow we grow plants just fine, and there's hundreds of feet of sedimentary layers underneath our feet. You're the one who thinks an impossible flood somehow sorted fossils by, among other things, complexity of shell suture, a property of mollusks that has no hydrodynamic or mechanical consequence. Why would I have to start over? The solidifed sediments don't go anywhere, come hell or high water. Do you honestly think we're proposing that mud and dust sit in the same place for all of a billion years? before they solidify? Where on Earth did you get such an idea?

Here is the thread to discuss the mountain fossils:
Buz's seashell claimI'll bump it for you as well so it is easy to tie into.

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.

---

quote:

---

Adding to crash's post, sediments laid down by water are interspersed with sediments that could only develop out of water.

---

IN the geologic column you mean? I don't have the knowledge to answer this. But the Flood is a better explanation of most of the known facts than the billion year explanation is so I assume it would eventually be answerable by Flood theory. Or some other theory than either of the above.

quote:

---

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.

---

You aren't making your point very clearly. You are saying these are found in the geologic column? What's wrong with the idea that they were formed before the Flood and got deposited in the column as a result of the Flood?

quote:

---

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.

---

You haven't yet said whether these paleosols are found in the geologic column.