Sedimentary Rock Formation

A common YEC position is that all, or nearly all, sedimentary rock layers are due to waterborne sediments. This would be particularly true of fossil-bearing layers.Yet, I think traditional geology holds that some of the layers are the result of water-borne sediments that were cemented by minerals while others are the result of wind-carried sediments that have compacted into stone. (And, perhaps, I have over-simplified it).At any rate, I would like to see a discussion of why certain layers could NOT have been the result of water-borne sediments. I refer specifically to fossil-bearing layers that contain fossils of land-dwelling organisms.AbE: I guess it should be noted for those who might not know...I am a YEC.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-29-2005 04:19 AM

Hi Coragyps, Well, I think those are some good points...I'd like to see some of the resident geologists expand on these ideas a bit more. Okay. I have heard such things myself. A question that comes into my mind, though, is how the egg was preserved long enough to undergo fossilization.

Hi RAZD,Well, the grass-marks-on-dunes fossils I've never heard of before.It brings to mind a slightly different issue. Particularly fossils of ripples in sand (like you see underwater at the beach) and footprints of various creatures.I can envision these types of delicate fossil imprints occuring only if the sand contained water and some sort of curing agent...sort of like how concrete works. Otherwise, it seems like the mark would quickly disappear.How COULD a grass mark on a dune become fossilized? (Just curious as to what the traditional geology explanation is...if there is one).--Jason

Hi Nuggin,The only answer I can muster for that objection to the Flood is that the Flood might have had several stages and various events (volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, recessions, etc.)...so the layers probably wouldn't represent "one fell swoop." Although, there probably would be a few places, particularly during the time after the rains and before the final recessions, where such a pattern would be made.However, this is sort of off-topic. I am not asking for evidence against the Flood per se. I am asking for evidence that not all sedimentary rock layers were not made by water-borned sediments.See, it would be a possibility, even under the evolution/billions-of-years paradigm, for ALL the layers to be the result of water-borne (but non-Flood) sediments. But, traditional geology claims that some of the sediments in the sedimentary rock layers are not water-borne.--Jason

Hi Jazzns,I'm not ignoring your point about evaporites. I thought your point was a thoughtful one. I just wanted to do a little reading up on evaporites, first.I don't even know the YEC position on evaporites...let alone traditional geology's position (except for the overview of both positions, which you gave).--Jason

Hi edge, Do these ancient dunes contain fossils, by any chance?Is there anything in the dune-analagous features that would absolutely prevent a watery origin?--Jason
--Jason

Forgive my ignorance...what's "QED"?

Jazzns,I haven't had a chance to read up on evaporites, yet, but just thinking about it for a moment...don't evaporites require that the sediment was originally in solution? That's still a watery origin, isn't it?--Jason

edge, I have trouble visualizing how preservation and fossilization can occur without mud (water-borne sediments). This makes me suspect the conclusion that the features are aeolian dunes is incorrect for some reason. I don't know; you said that dunes are analogs of certain geologic features. I figured you mostly meant cross-bedding, but I am not sure. If, by fossils, you mean the fact that they are land-animal fossils, that doesn't mean much to me. Land animals can easily be overcome by a watery environment -- in the case of a world-wide flood, it would be certain.However, I know nothing about the other things you mention. Sorting data? Gross structural information? Textural features?Of these three things, textural features strikes me as irrelevant (I could be wrong, of course). But it would seem to me that water-deposited sand that turned to stone would have a very similar texture to wind-deposited sand that turned to stone (although I can't visualized wind-deposited sand turning to stone...not saying it's impossible, though).Sorting data? Gross structural information? Could you provide more details about these subjects...or an informative link. Of course, any comments on the other topics is also appreciated.--Jason{edited for typos}This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-09-2005 01:00 AM

Hi MarkAustin, I looked back at your previous post Message 39, in which you state the following about the oviraptor. You probably had the question about nesting in mind when you wrote the statement; however, you wrote a statement and not a question. I have done this before, too...so no biggie, but I just wanted you to realize why I didn't answer it before -- i.e., I didn't realize you had a question in mind.The answer from the YEC paradigm is "NO." She was not nesting underwater, rather she and her nest -- though located in a terrestial environment -- were suddenly buried/crushed by sediment-rich waters due to the Genesis Flood. This would be similar -- though not exactly like -- the recent tsunami. The people killed by the tsunami were not living in the water, but -- though quite a distance inland -- suddenly found themselves underwater.You are perhaps unfamiliar with the YEC claim that nearly all fossils and sedimentary rock layers are a result of the Noachian Flood.--Jason

Hi Jazzns, I had not thought of this. A very good question and one, which I likely will not be able to answer (at least not very well).I do see at least two possibilities: (1) the creation of dry land on day three or (2) the Flood had stages which are responsible for such features.I would tend to go with number 1, because it would seem unlikely that anything would build a nest on muddy layers laid down at an earlier stage of the Flood (although, if the layers lithified due to a curing agent, it might be a sliiiiight possibility...the procuring of nesting materials being the biggest obstacle to such a thought, in my mind).The only thing I can do at this point is ask for a description of the layers under the fossil. But as I am no geologist, I'm not sure that would serve any fruitful purpose.--Jason

Nighttrain,Are believers looking for it? Maybe, but I don't think any YECs are.

Jazzns,As a side-note, you might find a "theory" of mine interesting (or not). I believe the fossilized footprints to be the result of creatures, who had survived earlier stages of the Flood, traveling across a layer laid down in a previous stage...which layers I envision to have had curing agents intermixed, and thus were in the process of lithifying before being traveled on and for the surface part (on which the creatures walked) to have cured enough to prevent washing away of the prints before the next stage of the Flood overtook the area again.--Jason

I guess, but am not sure. Heh. But, as an example, limestone, IIRC, is a natural curing agent. Or, I was under that impression, anyways.--Jason