Jump to content


Photo

The Elusive Geological Time Column


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#1 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 03 November 2008 - 07:23 PM

After reading through the books, and seeing all the neatly drawn textbook diagrams. I believe it is time that we take a look at what the evidence really shows concerning the geological time column. This is a massive research of where the majority of all dinosaur and mammal fossils are found all throughout the world. This research should finally unravel the supposed existance of the geological time column.

Also with the research being done, it may also map out what the world was like before the flood, and the actual placement of all the existing species at the time. This research will also reveal the massive evidence of a global flood, all the while exposing the geological time column for what it truly is.

So lets take a look at all the fossil sites that show a lack of the geological time column.

Starting in North America, and moving from there.

Judith River Group/ Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada
Dinosaur National Monument, Utah
Hell Creek, Montana
Dinosaur Trackways of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado
Williston Basin, western North Dakota/ Saskatchewan
Powder River Basin, eastern Montana
Wasatch Plateau, central Utah
Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado
Denver Basin, Colorado
San Juan Basin, New Mexico
Big Bend, Texas
Great Basin, California
Powder River Basin, Montana
Crazy Mountain Basin, Montana
Clark's Fork Basin, Montana/ Wyoming
Bighorn Basin, Wyoming
Purdy Basin, Wyoming
Wind River Basin, Wyoming
Hoback Basin, Wyoming
Green River Basin, Wyoming
Fossil Basin, Wyoming
Bison Basin, Wyoming
Washakie Basin, Wyoming
Carbon Basin, Wyoming
Alberta Syncline

South America

Jujuy Province, Argentina
Rio Loro, Tucuman Province, Argentina
Chubut Province, Argentina
Ischigualasto Formation, Argentina
La Armarga Formation, Argentina
Lohan Cura Formation, Argentina
Los Colorados Formation, Argentina
Malargue Group, Argentina
Neuquen Group, Argentina
Santa Maria Formation, Argentina/Brazil
South of Bogota City, Columbia
Laguna Umayo, Peru
Chulpas, Peru
Tiupampa, Bolivia
Santana Formation, Brazil

Europe

Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany
Paris Basin, France
Tremp Graus Basin, Spain
Unidade Amoreira- Porta Novo, Portugal
Wealden Group, Britain
Solnhofen limestone, Germany
Middle Stubebsandstein, Germany
Oxford Clay, Britain
Purbeck Beds, Britain
Sanpetru Formation, Romania
Kimmeridge Clay, Britain
Lower Lias, Britain
Holzmaden, Germany
Las Hoyas, Spain
Udurchukan Formation, Russia

Australia

Winton Formation
Wonthaggi Formation

Asia

Zhylga, Kazakhstan
Ulan-Nur Basin, Mongolia
Nemegt Basin, Mongolia
Bugin-Tsav Basin, Mongolia
Lower Lufeng Series, China
Iren Dabasu Formation, China
Jiufotang Formation, China
Khukhtek Formation, Mongolia
Kitadani Formation, Japan
Kota Formation, India
Lameta Formation, India
Sao Khua Formation, Thailand
Shishugou Formation, China
Tuchengzi Formation, China
Tugulu Group, China
Ulansuhai Formation, China
Wucaiwan Formation, China
Xinminbao Group, China
Yixian Formation, China
Liaoning, China
Zigong Dinosaur Park, Szechuan, China

Africa

Quarzazate Basin, Morocco
Karoo Basin, South Africa
Tegana Formation, North Africa


These are just a few fossil sites from around the world that fail the geological time column test. Now if it could be proven that these sites overlap each other and somehow create some sort of order, then maybe, just maybe the geological time column exist, but alas conclusive evidence is needed.

Global Flood evidence is quite easy to recognize, just take a look at the Karoo Basin where over 800 billion vertebrae animals DIED at once.

New Egg Mountain in Montana is also another great example, where 10,000 to 20,000 dinosaurs died simultaneously in a 2 mile area, or Sioux County Nebraska where 100 bones to the square foot are found in the area. Also look to the Islands of the Mediterranean where fissures of thousands of bones are crammed together.

Mount Etna has 2 caves CRAMMED with the bones of thousands of hippopatamus... Strange, hippopatamus on mountains... definetly undeniable flood catastrophe evidence.

Montceau fossils of forest have found about 7000 slabs and 100,000 nodules in excellent condition, along with fossilized spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects and reptiles, but the absolute most amazing part about this is the flood evidence it contains. Which is fossilized water ripples marks, and raindrops found on the site which also adds up to more evidence for a Global Flood.

Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta is also another great example of global flood evidence where 1 bone bed lie the remains of thousands of relatives to the centrosaurus!

This type of Flood evidence is not suprising at the least, seeing as how thousands of dinosaurs are usually found fossilized together in the majority of all fossil sites across the world. China has its share of mass graves. In all actuality most the dinosaur fossil sites today are truly mass graves anyways. These fossil sites also provide little to no evidence of a geological time column.

Evolutionist like to claim that the geological time column is fragmentary, but when the geological time column appears to be fragmentary almost 100% of the time, something is particulary fishy.

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 November 2008 - 08:39 PM

Great thread idea scott and what a thread it will likely be.
Lets start out with a cross section of the grand canyon....All threads are worthless without pics.hehehe.

Posted Image

Key

6 - Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap, and Kaibab
6d - Kaibab Limestone
6c - Toroweap Formation
6b - Coconino Sandstone
6a - Hermit Shale
5 - Supai Group
5d - Esplanade Formation
5c - Wescogame Formation
5b - Manakacha Formation
5a - Watahomigi Formation
4 - Temple Butte, Redwall, and Surprise Canyon
4c - Surprise Canyon Formation
4b - Redwall Limestone
4a - Temple Butte Limestone
3 - Tonto Group
3c - Muav Limestone
3b - Bright Angel Shale
3a - Tapeats Sandstone
2 - Grand Canyon Supergroup
1 - Vishnu Group
1b - Zoroaster Granite
1a - Vishnu Schist

I'll get the geologic era's on it later on,if i remember the top layers are the permian.

#3 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 03 November 2008 - 08:57 PM

Great thread idea scott and what a thread it will likely be.
Lets start out with a cross section of the grand canyon....All threads are worthless without pics.hehehe.

Posted Image

Key

6 - Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap, and Kaibab
6d - Kaibab Limestone
6c - Toroweap Formation
6b - Coconino Sandstone
6a - Hermit Shale
5 - Supai Group
5d - Esplanade Formation
5c - Wescogame Formation
5b - Manakacha Formation
5a - Watahomigi Formation
4 - Temple Butte, Redwall, and Surprise Canyon
4c - Surprise Canyon Formation
4b - Redwall Limestone
4a - Temple Butte Limestone
3 - Tonto Group
3c - Muav Limestone
3b - Bright Angel Shale
3a - Tapeats Sandstone
2 - Grand Canyon Supergroup
1 - Vishnu Group
1b - Zoroaster Granite
1a - Vishnu Schist

I'll get the geologic era's on it later on,if i remember the top layers are the permian.

View Post


Yes!!!! Pictures are awesome! I just think it's quite strange that permian layers are on top, and nothing but a desert for miles. Amazing, hundreds of millions of years are.... MISSING>>>as expected.

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 November 2008 - 09:11 PM

Thats not even the good part,consider this;

Temple Butte, Redwall, and Surprise Canyon
The next two periods of geologic history, the Ordovician and the Silurian, are missing from the Grand Canyon geologic sequence. Geologists do not know if sediments were deposited in these periods and were later removed by erosion or if they were never deposited in the first place. Either way, this break in the geologic history of the area marks an unconformity of about 165 million years.

(See 4 on map legend)

Those layers are just stacked perfectly on top of each other with no evidence of erosion,but instead of making a scientific assessment based on the evidence they let their world veiw tell them they must have eroded away.

#5 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 04 November 2008 - 07:40 AM

So, how do you suggest that the Grand Canyon was created?

http://en.wikipedia....anyon#Geography

First, at least 6,000 ft of sediments had to be deposited in a neatly layered fashion.

Then they had to solidify to form rocks.

Finally, a river had to dig a 6,000 ft deep, 277miles long, and up to 18 miles wide gorge into the formation.

Can you provide a plausible theory of how this formation could have been created, in 6,000 years, and as a result of a flood event?

Hans

#6 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 November 2008 - 10:55 AM

So, how do you suggest that the Grand Canyon was created?

http://en.wikipedia....anyon#Geography

First, at least 6,000 ft of sediments had to be deposited in a neatly layered fashion.

Then they had to solidify to form rocks.

Finally, a river had to dig a 6,000 ft deep, 277miles long, and up to 18 miles wide gorge into the formation.

Can you provide a plausible theory of how this formation could have been created, in 6,000 years, and as a result of a flood event?

Hans

View Post


The majority of the Grand Canyon may not even be sedimental layers, seeing as how it is the top layers that contain the fossils. The Grand Canyon is what should be expected after a large receeding amount of water cuts through soft sediment. Now the flood itself may have been around 30,000 feet deep given that is around the height of the tallest mountain. Also the extreme height of the water should not affect the oxygen level in the atomosphere because the water being equal around the world would press all the oxygen and the ozone layer outward.

The formation itself would not have taken 6000 years to produce, it most likely only took a few weeks or months for the waters to cut through all the soft sediment.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 November 2008 - 11:23 AM

Hi Hans,
The bible says after the flood "The mountains rose up and the valleys sank down".

That would mean massive volcanoe and tectonic activity had to happen.If so,pyroplacstic flows with massive amounts of co2 would have poured into the oceans forming carbonic acid,which would cause calcium to percipitate out of solution and form massive limestone formations all over the world.

Why are these formations not being formed on that massive of a distribution in the present?Why do none of these formations have the thousands of volcanic ash layers that would have to be there in a uniformatairian model,not even any marine growth layers.

Just look at 4a and 4c on the map.Those are river channels that were suddenly covered by limestone,otherwise those channels would have cut slowly and gradually through the entire layer.

The tapeats sandstone (3a on the map) shows massive erosion below it,which is called the great unconformity.It can be found almost anywhere in the world.Flood geologist or uniformitairian alike have to agree most or all land on earth was flooded at that time.

Sounds like willing ignorance to me.

Thanks.

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 November 2008 - 02:05 PM



Heres a video from Paul Garner that gives the best evidence for a global flood in the grand canyon.Note that he argues because of the evidence and not despite it.

Enjoy.

#9 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 05 November 2008 - 02:24 AM

The majority of the Grand Canyon may not even be sedimental layers, seeing as how it is the top layers that contain the fossils.


Sorry, but ALL of the layers are evidently sedimentary. They consist of particles of varius types of rock (also called sand and gravel), fused together by chemical deposits. And, of course, even without a microscope, they are evidently layered.

There is absolutely no getting around the fact that the Grand Canyon formation displays a layer of sediments at least 6,000 ft thick.

The Grand Canyon is what should be expected after a large receeding amount of water cuts through soft sediment.


I'm afraid not. The GC is predominatly V-shaped in profile. A large amount of water cutting into soft sediment will create a U-shaped profile.


Now the flood itself may have been around 30,000 feet deep given that is around the height of the tallest mountain.


Unfortunately, enough water exists on the planet to form a layer that thick.

Also the extreme height of the water should not affect the oxygen level in the atomosphere because the water being equal around the world would press all the oxygen and the ozone layer outward.


Ehr, yes, that would be correct. But irrelevant for the formation of the GC.

The formation itself would not have taken 6000 years to produce, it most likely only took a few weeks or months for the waters to cut through all the soft sediment.


Again, the profile is wrong for that scenario, plus you miss something: Where did all that sediment come from? The Colerado Plateau is the size of Arizona, and over a mile thick, that is well over 120,000 cubic miles of sediment. Where did all that sediment come from?

Hans

#10 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 05 November 2008 - 02:33 AM

Hi Hans,
The bible says after the flood "The mountains rose up and the valleys sank down".

That would mean massive volcanoe and tectonic activity had to happen.If so,pyroplacstic flows with massive amounts of co2 would have poured into the oceans forming carbonic acid,which would cause calcium to percipitate out of solution and form massive limestone formations all over the world.


Unfortunatly, the sediment rocks of the GC show nothing of that chemistry. Also, your physics are wrong: Long before CO2 releases would affect the acidity of the oceans to any appreciable extent, a run-away greenhouse effect would make the oceans boil.

Finally, you are now depicting a very violent event with global volcanic eruptions, giant earthquakes with the resultant enormous tsunamis, plus the whole chemistry of the pklanet being upturned. .... And you want me to believe that a handful of people, with no seaman experience whatsoever, managed to survive that turmoil in a flimsy, overloaded wooden boat, with no means of propulsion or steering?

(I'll address your other questions, later)

Hans

#11 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 05 November 2008 - 07:41 AM

Now for the rest of your questions.

*snip*
Why are these formations not being formed on that massive of a distribution in the present?


I don't understand that question.

Why do none of these formations have the thousands of volcanic ash layers that would have to be there in a uniformatairian model,not even any marine growth layers.


Why should they necessarily have layers of volcanic ash? Very few volcanic eruptions have left perceptible ash layers globally. There is very little volcanic activity in that area; in fact, the Colorado Plateau is noted for its exceptional geological stability. Even this column is, as noted elsewhere, not continuous, so any volcanic layers might have been lost.

Note that I'm simply taking your statement at face value, here. I have not investigated if the Colorado Plateau column really does not contain any volcanic sediments.

Just look at 4a and 4c on the map.Those are river channels that were suddenly covered by limestone,otherwise those channels would have cut slowly and gradually through the entire layer.


Suddenly? Why suddenly? But rivers are know to sometimes change their path. It can be suddenly, if the river breaks through some barrier and finds a new bed; then the old bed downstream of the break will dry out and may then be covered with sediment at a later time.

The tapeats sandstone (3a on the map) shows massive erosion below it,which is called the great unconformity.It can be found almost anywhere in the world.Flood geologist or uniformitairian alike have to agree most or all land on earth was flooded at that time.


All that shows is that the area was exposed during some era. I don't know what uniformitatians are, but I have not heard of any consensus (outside creationist circles) of ant evidence of a contemporary global flood. (Again, the planet simply does not contain enough water for a global flood.)

Hans

#12 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 November 2008 - 08:16 AM

Sorry, but ALL of the layers are evidently sedimentary. They consist of particles of varius types of rock (also called sand and gravel), fused together by chemical deposits. And, of course, even without a microscope, they are evidently layered.

There is absolutely no getting around the fact that the Grand Canyon formation displays a layer of sediments at least 6,000 ft thick.
I'm afraid not. The GC is predominatly V-shaped in profile. A large amount of water cutting into soft sediment will create a U-shaped profile.
Unfortunately, enough water exists on the planet to form a layer that thick.
Ehr, yes, that would be correct. But irrelevant for the formation of the GC.
Again, the profile is wrong for that scenario, plus you miss something: Where did all that sediment come from? The Colerado Plateau is the size of Arizona, and over a mile thick, that is well over 120,000 cubic miles of sediment. Where did all that sediment come from?

Hans

View Post



U shaped versus v shaped profile absolutely does not matter, because Hans you need to look at what floods really create. Because I have seen FIRST HAND floods creating v shapes in soft sediment, so yes you are most definetly incorrect. Also its a great thing that the grand canyon is almost entirely sedimental, meaning 100% of it was carried there by water, and any denying this is willful ignorance on the grandest of scales.

Where did all the sediment come from? What? You know exactly where it came from, other areas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't play around like you do NOT know, because it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS thats what happened.

6,000 feet thick is mere matchsticks for a Global Flood, which you seem to not understand. Also you ask where did all the water come from, well seeing as how the majority of the earth is covered with water, and has thousands of underground places that can and do carry water I have no problem seeing where the water came from and went to. Especially from the hands of an angry God.

Evidence for a geological time column within the grand canyon still doesn't exist, because quite simply there is no evidence of a geological time column. You need to look at what the evidence really shows Hans, because in all reality the geological time column does not exist. The evidence for a global flood is overwhelming. The evidence for a geological time column, is again non existant.

I'm not missing anything Hans, sediment had to be laid down period. The massive amounts of fossils and sediments worldwide show evidence of an extremely large global flood, and you will be hard pressed to NOT find Flood Evidence, because it exist at EVERY fossil and sediment layer across the entire WORLD.

Have you EVER been to any fossil sites? All are covered with sediment, nowhere on planet earth does the geological time column exist and you will be hard pressed to find ANY evidence for it.

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 November 2008 - 12:29 PM

Quote;Unfortunatly, the sediment rocks of the GC show nothing of that chemistry. Also, your physics are wrong: Long before CO2 releases would affect the acidity of the oceans to any appreciable extent, a run-away greenhouse effect would make the oceans boil.

Where do you think limestone percipitates come from?The red wall limestones are thousands of feet thick.Co2 is heavier than air and would blanket the ground and oceans,not disperse into the atmosphere.

Quote;I don't understand that question

An aithiest Derek Ager does and if he can see when geologist are being brainwashed by uniformatairians,do you think we cant?

Quote;Why should they necessarily have layers of volcanic ash?

Because if the limestones were millions of years old they should have thousands of volcanic ash layers,plain and simple.Volcanoes eject ash thousands of feet into the atmosphere where wind carries it and deposits it all over the world.We got some ash deposited here in Arkansas from Mt. St. Helens in 1981.

Quote;(Again, the planet simply does not contain enough water for a global flood.)

The oceans are 7 miles deep in some places.Before the mountains rose up after the flood,there would have been more than enough water to flood the entire surface.The ironic thing is,scientist claim to see evidence of a massive flood on mars,that does'nt have any water on its surface.

#14 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 November 2008 - 01:44 PM

Quote;U shaped versus v shaped profile absolutely does not matter, because Hans you need to look at what floods really create. Because I have seen FIRST HAND floods creating v shapes in soft sediment, so yes you are most definetly incorrect. Also its a great thing that the grand canyon is almost entirely sedimental, meaning 100% of it was carried there by water, and any denying this is willful ignorance on the grandest of scales.

Scott,look at the cross section i posted.The top half is u-shaped,only the bottom is v-shaped.

#15 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:06 PM

Jason, thats a very good point, u shaped on top, and v shaped on bottom. Looks to me the top was carved when it was still moist, and the bottom was rock hard, but it was still carved through. The only reason the bottom did not produce a u shape, was most likely because the sediment on the bottom was also the hardest of the sediment layers.

This is amazing though, the more you look at the Grand Canyon, the more it shows characteristics of a flood, or shall I say a Global Flood.

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 November 2008 - 04:09 PM

Quote;The only reason the bottom did not produce a u shape, was most likely because the sediment on the bottom was also the hardest of the sediment layers.

Thats what i would suggest.The precambrian is pre-flood rock so it was solid from creation day,all the layers above it being flood and post-flood rocks.

I looked at satellite maps of the grand canyon many months ago and i noticed the huge and wide u-shaped erosion at the top half of the canyon and pointed it out to my brother.He said it is likely normal flood erosion from the colorado,i guess so if it rised 1 mile in a normal flood,but it still doesnt answer why the bottom is still v-shaped.

Dr. Marc Surtees is the one that taught me that it always pays to look at the details.

From satellite maps i also noticed that the grand canyon is directly south east from the salt flats of utah.It could be very likely that an earthquake or uplift caused that inland sea to suddenly drain forming the canyon.

Thanks.

#17 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:49 AM

Evidence for a geological time column within the grand canyon still doesn't exist, because quite simply there is no evidence of a geological time column.  You need to look at what the evidence really shows Hans, because in all reality the geological time column does not exist.  The evidence for a global flood is overwhelming.  The evidence for a geological time column, is again non existant.

I'm not missing anything Hans, sediment had to be laid down period.  The massive amounts of fossils and sediments worldwide show evidence of an extremely large global flood, and you will be hard pressed to NOT find Flood Evidence, because it exist at EVERY fossil and sediment layer across the entire WORLD.

Have you EVER been to any fossil sites?  All are covered with sediment, nowhere on planet earth does the geological time column exist and you will be hard pressed to find ANY evidence for it.

View Post


Our understanding of the geology and history of the Grand Canyon comes from tens of thousands of observations and hundreds of studies. From your comments, I am guessing that you are unaware of the primary reasons that a global flood model was rejected over 150 years ago.

Most scientists love to overturn the standard model (that is what brings fame and fortune to a scientist). However, to do that, they must begin with the evidence that is used to support the standard model, then show that the new model provides a better account of that evidence. I am happy to help you understand this evidence. If you visit the Grand Canyon, I could even tell you where to see much of the evidence with your own eyes. However, I really recommend that you do a bit of reading so that at least you understand the evidence. There are many hundreds of facts and fossils to view, and you would never seem them all in a day hike.

Here are some questions to begin.
1. For example, do you know the ordering of the fossils found in the Grand Canyon?
2. What fossils are found in the bottom sedimentary layers (i.e. the Bass Limestone) ?
3. What layers show the first bottom dwellers like corals and shellfish?
4. What layers show the first bones or teeth?
5. What layers show the first foot prints? Where did these animals come from?

The layers in the Grand Canyon can be tracked for hundreds of miles up the Colorado to other canyons. Here is a diagram of these layers from the local and long range view.

The long range view is a bit large, but you can see that if you click here
http://creationwiki....d_Staircase.jpg
But I will also try a link.
Posted Image

That image on the above link is from a creationist site, by the way. However, it shows how geologists observe the layers as we track them across Colorado and Utah. This allows to look at the ordering as we continue to move up through higher layers outside of the Canyon.

Here is the standard close up view
Posted Image

Let us begin with those 5 questions above to see what you know about the Grand Canyon. From there we can proceed to a number of other established facts of the Grand Canyon, and nearby canyons as well.

James

#18 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 07 November 2008 - 09:14 AM

Our understanding of the geology and history of the Grand Canyon comes from tens of thousands of observations and hundreds of studies. From your comments, I am guessing that you are unaware of the primary reasons that a global flood model was rejected over 150 years ago.

  Most scientists love to overturn the standard model (that is what brings fame and fortune to a scientist). However, to do that, they must begin with the evidence that is used to support the standard model, then show that the new model provides a better account of that evidence. I am happy to help you understand this evidence. If you visit the Grand Canyon, I could even tell you where to see much of the evidence with your own eyes. However, I really recommend that you do a bit of reading so that at least you understand the evidence. There are many hundreds of facts and fossils to view, and you would never seem them all in a day hike.

Here are some questions to begin.
  1. For example, do you know the ordering of the fossils found in the Grand Canyon?
  2. What fossils are found in the bottom sedimentary layers (i.e. the Bass Limestone) ?
  3. What layers show the first bottom dwellers like corals and shellfish?
  4. What layers show the first bones or teeth?
  5. What layers show the first foot prints? Where did these animals come from?

The layers in the Grand Canyon can be tracked for hundreds of miles up the Colorado to other canyons. Here is a diagram of these layers from the local and long range view.

The long range view is a bit large, but you can see that if you click here
http://creationwiki....d_Staircase.jpg
But I will also try a link.
Posted Image

That image on the above link is from a creationist site, by the way. However, it shows how geologists observe the layers as we track them across Colorado and Utah. This allows to look at the ordering as we continue to move up through higher layers outside of the Canyon.

Here is the standard close up view
Posted Image

Let us begin with those 5 questions above to see what you know about the Grand Canyon. From there we can proceed to a number of other established facts of the Grand Canyon, and nearby canyons as well.

James

View Post


Im guessing you are unaware that no fossils or sediment is actually found in a stacked order, so please, if you could find fossils directly stacked, then yes you would be correct, but unfortunately there is no such thing. The textbook pictures you have shown, aren't very convincing to say the least seeing as how every fossil site around the world shows evidence of a Global Flood. You seem to not understand this, and I will say it over and over again.

Look at those fossil sites I posted, and point out the neatly stacked diagrams that you love and cherrish, and you will see that you can't, because the geological time column doesn't exist. The fossils directly show evidence of a Global Flood and this in and of itself is undeniable. And I would enjoy to see you prove me wrong. I can guarantee that you will not find the fossils stacked in any order, appearing with the most primitve first, all the way up to the most advanced.

So how do thousands of dinosaur and mammal grave sites all over the world not provide evidence of a Global Flood. Show me.

#19 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 November 2008 - 03:06 PM

Hi James,
Quote;Our understanding of the geology and history of the Grand Canyon comes from tens of thousands of observations and hundreds of studies. From your comments, I am guessing that you are unaware of the primary reasons that a global flood model was rejected over 150 years ago.

Yes we all do and so do you,because Charles Lyell wanted to seperate geology from the bible and even misrepresented the erosion rate of niagra falls to fool people.

Quote;Here are some questions to begin.
1. For example, do you know the ordering of the fossils found in the Grand Canyon?

Yes,thats exactly why evolutionist claim the ordovician and silurian eroded away,no way they can have bird foot prints that early in the fossil record.

Thanks.

#20 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 November 2008 - 03:18 PM

www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm - 18k -

Heres a link discussing and describing permian bird footprints from the hermit shale and some others from around the world.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users