CMI’s Dr Tas Walker has written an article from the YEC perspective regarding Siccar Point. It is full of misleading and outright wrong statements and conclusions.
(Article text in italics)
“The lower rocks are composed of grey vertical beds of alternating greywacke and shale. Greywacke is a type of sandstone which indicates that it was deposited very rapidly. It is composed of particles with a range of sizes, from very coarse sand to fine clay. This means that the sediment was transported and deposited so rapidly that it did not have time to sort into different sizes.”
Yep, the mainstream view is also that the greywacke was laid rapidly during underwater marine avalanches down the continental shelf which makes this following paragraph in the article completely redundant:
“Also, the grains of sand in greywacke are not rounded, but jagged, indicating again that the sand was transported rapidly. If it had been transported slowly in a river, the sharp edges would have been worn smooth as the moving sand particles rubbed each other.”
Nobody is saying that the greywacke was laid by rivers so that is nothing but a strawman.
What is very conspicuous is that the article mentions the shale which alternates with the greywacke right at the start but then completely neglects to explain it. Under the mainstream view the shale (which is composed of fine grained silt sized particles) was laid down very slowly in between the periodic greywacke landslide events. Clearly under the catastrophic flood scenario there is no explanation for this pattern (there would be no extended calm period for deposition of a silt layer).
“And the flat strata sit one on top of the other—without any sign of a break in deposition—indicating the fast deposition processes operated continuously while the whole rock deposit was formed.”
So again confirming that CMI are completely ignoring the fine grained shale layers. If there was continuous fast deposition you certainly would not get alternating strata as shown at Siccar Point. How can this be denied ?
Under the “Folding and eroding” section:
“Not only were the lower rocks deposited quickly, but they were folded while they were still soft and contained abundant water.”
Well that claim is blown out of the water by the presence of ripple marks that are visible on exposed vertical strata today (as shown in the image in the first post of this thread). How would these beautifully preserved ripples remain intact if they were uplifted vertically while still soft ? And of course the presence of eroded greywacke fragments in the boundary. You have got to be joking if you think that makes sense in light of the rapid soft folding claimed by the creationist camp. Clearly the greywacke would need to be solid rock to enable fragments to be incorporated into the later deposited red sandstone.
The next paragraph contains a claim (Indy's primary argument) that is blatantly false:
“However, the contact shows no differential weathering, which indicates that the erosion was by catastrophic processes, unlike the gradual erosion of the countryside today. ”
Again, as shown by the photos in this thread, there absolutely is differential weathering of the contact.
Regarding the overlying red sandstone layers:
“Furthermore, the Old Red Sandstone covers a huge geographical area, indicating that the catastrophe was very large. In the Scottish Midland Valley, which incorporates Siccar Point, the sediments are deposited in a rectangular basin. It is 400 km long from Siccar Point in the east to Northern Ireland in the west. It is 100 km wide, from the Southern Uplands to the Grampian Mountains in the north. It consists of pebble beds, sands and silts mixed with volcanic lavas and is more than 7 km thick.”
“The successive beds of the Old Red Sandstone show they were deposited one after the other without significant time breaks between them ……Some sandstone horizons contain animal tracks, so there was not much time involved.”
Are we really meant to believe that in the process of rapid catastrophic deposition to great depth of sediments across such wide areas that there were still animals running around leaving tracks during this time ? It beggars belief that the tracks are posited here as evidence for the biblical model.
There are many more downright false and misleading statements in the article that I could mention. Why would CMI publish such a misleading article ? Why do they avoid an honest appraisal of the facts ?