Jump to content


Photo

Layers Of Rock


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
50 replies to this topic

#21 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 April 2011 - 03:10 PM

I can't speak for other geologists, but I would expect rapid sedimentation to be the result of outwash from melting glacial ice at the top of a volcanoi that was caused by the events surrounding a volcanic eruption. Why would any of us assume that slow and gradual sedimentation would result from what is basically a catastrophic event that occurs within a short period of time compared to other geologic events resulting in sedimentation?

I can't see how the eruption proved geologists wrong. Can you provide a citation that states what geologists expected and how this is in variance with what was observed?




The laminations in the strata are assumed to be the result of slow gradual sedimentation over thousands of years. As you can see, thousands of laminations occurred in a single event (~8 hours).

http://www.answersin...1/i2/nature.asp

http://creation.com/sandy-stripes

#22 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 01 May 2011 - 05:14 AM

I can't speak for other geologists, but I would expect rapid sedimentation to be the result of outwash from melting glacial ice at the top of a volcanoi that was caused by the events surrounding a volcanic eruption. Why would any of us assume that slow and gradual sedimentation would result from what is basically a catastrophic event that occurs within a short period of time compared to other geologic events resulting in sedimentation?

I can't see how the eruption proved geologists wrong. Can you provide a citation that states what geologists expected and how this is in variance with what was observed?

The laminations in the strata are assumed to be the result of slow gradual sedimentation over thousands of years. As you can see, thousands of laminations occurred in a single event (~8 hours).

http://www.answersin...1/i2/nature.asp

http://creation.com/sandy-stripes

View Post


Geologists acknowledge catastrophe in the rock record. They acknowledge gradual uniform sedimentation rates. They know that catastrophic processes happened in the rock record--that's why river systems and can move hundreds of millions tons of sediment--but it takes a long time. :blink: They already knew that canyons can be cut by outburst flood waters, but they can tell the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon. The nautiloids in the Redwall Limestone are no problem--they already predicted that sometimes that would happen--but otherwise limestone takes a really long time to form. You just have to look at the geologic timescale. It will tell you everything.

You have to understand Jason ;), they already knew about all this stuff. Even though you could theoretically extrapolate that if a small catastrophe can physically lay strata, unless geologists see it happen, or there is a polystrate fossil, or other time limitation in the formation, or there are other signs of turbulence--it took millions of years. That's why there is just absolutely no evidence for a flood. Why can't creationists just acknowledge that. :)

#23 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 May 2011 - 01:30 PM

Geologists acknowledge catastrophe in the rock record.  They acknowledge gradual uniform sedimentation rates.  They know that catastrophic processes happened in the rock record--that's why river systems and can move hundreds of millions tons of sediment--but it takes a long time.  :blink:  They already knew that canyons can be cut by outburst flood waters, but they can tell the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon. The nautiloids in the Redwall Limestone are no problem--they already predicted that sometimes that would happen--but otherwise limestone takes a really long time to form. You just have to look at the geologic timescale.  It will tell you everything. 

You have to understand Jason ;), they already knew about all this stuff.  Even though you could theoretically extrapolate that if a small catastrophe can physically lay strata, unless geologists see it happen, or there is a polystrate fossil, or other time limitation in the formation, or there are other signs of turbulence--it took millions of years.  That's why there is just absolutely no evidence for a flood.  Why can't creationists just acknowledge that. :rolleyes:

View Post


Yeah. And uniformitairian geologists are never proven wrong either. It was just an old idea that wasn't accepted by everyone at the time. And since it was written about once in some old obscure book back in 1953, it simply wasn't worth mentioning again.

#24 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:45 AM

I can't speak for other geologists, but I would expect rapid sedimentation to be the result of outwash from melting glacial ice at the top of a volcanoi that was caused by the events surrounding a volcanic eruption. Why would any of us assume that slow and gradual sedimentation would result from what is basically a catastrophic event that occurs within a short period of time compared to other geologic events resulting in sedimentation?

I can't see how the eruption proved geologists wrong. Can you provide a citation that states what geologists expected and how this is in variance with what was observed?

View Post


Again avoiding the issue. The Noahic flood involved a combination of events that happened congruently with each other for 40 days and nights. Envision earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes, and tornadic weather in rapid sequence all over the world at during that period. Massive movement of plate tectonics would almost certainly be involved. All of which were affected by the 'fountains of the great deep' breaking up. I do not know why you cannot grasp this. The evidence is there en-masse(!) and yet you deliberately interpret things completely the opposite.

Posted Image

Not like it isn't obvious.

Posted Image

Exceedingly so:

Posted Image

Yet you and those of your persuasion come up with the most pitiful, sickly excuses to maintain a theory that has never been observed by human eyes.

Posted Image

But had those 'arguments' held any weight or even common sense I might have returned to the evolutionist position within 5 or 10 yrs after I departed from it yrs ago. So would a lot of other ex-evolutionists I know of.

#25 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 08 May 2011 - 06:26 AM

We must realise that some people will always try to explain away the evidence to hold on to their way of thinking, sometimes its just hard to admit you are wrong, even when the evidence is smacking You in the face.

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 June 2011 - 10:52 AM

We must realise that some people will always try to explain away the evidence to hold on to their way of thinking, sometimes its just hard to admit you are wrong, even when the evidence is smacking You in the face.


Very true, I can assume doubly so for any scientist or anyone who deems themselves an intellectual..

But then again some smart guy said, "when my facts change I change my opinion, what do you do sir?" (or something like that) if only more people were so open-minded to realise that perhaps they are wrong in some things...

#27 Newhope

Newhope

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Astronomy, soap making, bush walking, gym.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • NSW, Australia

Posted 12 June 2011 - 05:25 PM

Geologists acknowledge catastrophe in the rock record. They acknowledge gradual uniform sedimentation rates. They know that catastrophic processes happened in the rock record--that's why river systems and can move hundreds of millions tons of sediment--but it takes a long time. :blink: They already knew that canyons can be cut by outburst flood waters, but they can tell the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon. The nautiloids in the Redwall Limestone are no problem--they already predicted that sometimes that would happen--but otherwise limestone takes a really long time to form. You just have to look at the geologic timescale. It will tell you everything.

You have to understand Jason ;), they already knew about all this stuff. Even though you could theoretically extrapolate that if a small catastrophe can physically lay strata, unless geologists see it happen, or there is a polystrate fossil, or other time limitation in the formation, or there are other signs of turbulence--it took millions of years. That's why there is just absolutely no evidence for a flood. Why can't creationists just acknowledge that. :)


What about the accurancy of dating methods constantly being called into question?
http://www.scienceda...10518121227.htm

Jason is correct. Really scientists are best guesing in line with time lines that suit the TOE.

Even when the layer classification contradicts evolutionary hypothesis that is no problem for evo researchers. They then just rework the strata and redate it according to the fossils found. eg the Jehol bird fossils, and present this as evidence to the community.

http://creation.com/...the-jehol-group
http://www.scienceda...90609092055.htm

#28 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 June 2011 - 11:46 AM

As far as I concerned Jason777 nailed the coffin on this issue...

Quote: "The laminations in the strata are assumed to be the result of slow gradual sedimentation over thousands of years. As you can see, thousands of laminations occurred in a single event (~8 hours)."

He was talking about that which was laid down at Mount St. Helens in 1980. If uniformitarian geology were truly accurate then thousands of yrs of sediment was laid down....in 8 to 9 hrs. Right! ;)

Do they really expect us to swallow that (evolutionary) nonsense?

#29 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 13 June 2011 - 01:17 PM

yes they do. uh i have heard that even now the geologist say that the grand canyon wasnt formed by the colorado river.that has been falsefied as they have found sediment form the grand canyon in the ocean near la and sand diego.


http://www.grandcany...rg/geology2.htm

shoot google what i posted i came across this they dont know they all say things that contradict each other. has anyone heard what i said?

#30 Newhope

Newhope

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Astronomy, soap making, bush walking, gym.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • NSW, Australia

Posted 14 June 2011 - 11:51 AM

yes they do. uh i have heard that even now the geologist say that the grand canyon wasnt formed by the colorado river.that has been falsefied as they have found sediment form the grand canyon in the ocean near la and sand diego.


http://www.grandcany...rg/geology2.htm

shoot google what i posted i came across this they dont know they all say things that contradict each other. has anyone heard what i said?


I am hearing you jason. The article on the Grand Canyon is good. It is reflective of the state of TOE. In the end evolutionary researchers have little clue about much of thier supposed support for TOE, and yet will cite this ficticious support as irrefutable evidence of their claims.

The evolutionary garbage bin or delusions past is really quite huge.

Jason777 has put up the nail in the coffin really as he has exposed an impossibility without explanation.

The inacurracies of dating methods and evidence over confusion of how some formation formed, or didn't, fossils being used to redate strata eg Jehol birds, is also good supporting evidence against rock layering being used to support TOE in any way.

#31 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 June 2011 - 03:31 AM

I am hearing you jason. The article on the Grand Canyon is good. It is reflective of the state of TOE. In the end evolutionary researchers have little clue about much of thier supposed support for TOE, and yet will cite this ficticious support as irrefutable evidence of their claims.

The evolutionary garbage bin or delusions past is really quite huge.

Jason777 has put up the nail in the coffin really as he has exposed an impossibility without explanation.

The inacurracies of dating methods and evidence over confusion of how some formation formed, or didn't, fossils being used to redate strata eg Jehol birds, is also good supporting evidence against rock layering being used to support TOE in any way.

I need to go over to my local park, and take a picture. There is a huge pile of sand there (they're doing construction)--it's about 15 ft high. One side forms an outcrop-like formation where you can see laminations from top to bottom. I saw this occrrance in Africa one time, in a smaller pile of sand that had been there for an indefinite period. Look up 'Sandy Stripes' at Answers in Genesis.

I have a little hypothesis. Many minerals crystallize in planar fashion, and you know that water is a polar molecule. I think they should do experiments on the physical charateristics between water and silicon or silicate to see if there are planar mechanics happening in sedimentation. Maybe someone can find something on this.

I know we have discussed at length the findings of Pierre Julienne, and Guy Berthault. They pointed out that current, and still water sedimentation can explain lamination and also strata building. But obviously these sand piles are showing there is something going on during dessication.

#32 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 June 2011 - 06:46 AM

I've found what I believe to be evidence of Noah's flood...in my own back yard (midwest, USA). I have never had a hard time finding fossils either.

Posted Image

The rock on the left reveals a leaf that was encased in limestone. The one to it's right is a piece of wood, likewise embedded in rock. The small one at bottom amounts to several small sea shells that were once smashed together by some turbulent event. But that's the point: what besides Noah's flood would have done this? Most earthquakes and floods don't make for fossil conditions but what is described in scripture (Genesis 7) makes for perfect fossil making conditions. I can't prove that it was Noah's flood that did it but we also find very similar fossils around the shores of the lake near our home. As far as I know of there are no recorded disasters in our area. Except for the very cold winters we live in one of the safest places in America.

Here's a close-up of the smallest fossil/rock above:

Posted Image

A few days ago we found this while digging and planting our garden:

Posted Image

That one surprised me. Do we have the remains of an early American pioneer buried somewhere in our back yard? Hmm.

Another surprise:

Posted Image

A medallion bearing the likeness of pope John Paul II (no, I'm not catholic). I've lived here for nearly 30 yrs but I have no idea how this object was buried in our back yard but one thing for certain; it's the only object we've found that can be dated with any certainty. (the other medallion, the colorful one, is a medallion on spiritual warfare given to me as a gift from a friend. I used it to help my camera get a better focus).

My point is here that most fossils are formed by cataclysmic conditions. Of course, there are exceptions but, except for the coin & the teethy we found what could have embedded the fossils I listed above? They were each buried less than 1 1/2 feet from the surface.

#33 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 18 June 2011 - 08:19 AM

I've found what I believe to be evidence of Noah's flood...in my own back yard (midwest, USA). I have never had a hard time finding fossils either.


I often mention in my talks about the global flood that many people find evidence of the flood in their own back yard. If you go to Home Depot, if you look long enough you'll find marine fossils in the gravel.

Pretty interesting about the teeth. Do you live in Arkansas? :D

#34 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 18 June 2011 - 01:28 PM

I often mention in my talks about the global flood that many people find evidence of the flood in their own back yard. If you go to Home Depot, if you look long enough you'll find marine fossils in the gravel.

Pretty interesting about the teeth. Do you live in Arkansas? :D


Thanks.

Right. That's true.

Nope. Way up north. :)

#35 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 18 June 2011 - 03:13 PM

interesting. its sad that christians just as in the past when we were told that david and solomon were fictional charachters compromise.

and yet today nobody says that those two were fictional or in general doubts the historical accuracy of the bible.

#36 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 June 2011 - 04:01 PM

I can't speak for other geologists, but I would expect rapid sedimentation to be the result of outwash from melting glacial ice at the top of a volcanoi that was caused by the events surrounding a volcanic eruption. Why would any of us assume that slow and gradual sedimentation would result from what is basically a catastrophic event that occurs within a short period of time compared to other geologic events resulting in sedimentation?

I can't see how the eruption proved geologists wrong. Can you provide a citation that states what geologists expected and how this is in variance with what was observed?

I am really stumped here. What is the millions of years, and eons of time based on then? It's like you want the best of both worlds. Varves are held up as proof of hundreds of thousands of seasonal sedimentation. Is it not still taught that millions of years of eolian sedimentation caused the Coconino sandstone? Are there or are there not geologic congresses that decide the sedimentation rates, and other 'rulers' of time. And if not, then where are the rulers of time? Is it only in radiometric dating, with it's many variances, and unknown starting variables?

It never ceases to amaze me how, when creationists point out that laminations, which in other older formations are held to be stop and go sedimentation, were put in place in a matter of hours or days--then suddenly, all the geologists knew it happens. Then why don't they teach that they just don't really have that much foundation in the old earth, based on sedimentation rates? Why don't they teach that they don't really have a foundation for the teaching that the Grand Canyon was carved out by a little river in the bottom, rather than a catastrophic water gap?

#37 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 18 June 2011 - 04:05 PM

I am really stumped here. What is the millions of years, and eons of time based on then? It's like you want the best of both worlds. Varves are held up as proof of hundreds of thousands of seasonal sedimentation. Is it not still taught that millions of years of eolian sedimentation caused the Coconino sandstone? Are there or are there not geologic congresses that decide the sedimentation rates, and other 'rulers' of time. And if not, then where are the rulers of time? Is it only in radiometric dating, with it's many variances, and unknown starting variables?

It never ceases to amaze me how, when creationists point out that laminations, which in other older formations are held to be stop and go sedimentation, were put in place in a matter of hours or days--then suddenly, all the geologists knew it happens. Then why don't they teach that they just don't really have that much foundation in the old earth, based on sedimentation rates? Why don't they teach that they don't really have a foundation for the teaching that the Grand Canyon was carved out by a little river in the bottom, rather than a catastrophic water gap?

stubborness, scientists are human and surely they have that failing that and this. there cant be a god that wrote the bible.

#38 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 June 2011 - 09:39 PM

I've found what I believe to be evidence of Noah's flood...in my own back yard (midwest, USA). I have never had a hard time finding fossils either.

Posted Image

The rock on the left reveals a leaf that was encased in limestone. The one to it's right is a piece of wood, likewise embedded in rock. The small one at bottom amounts to several small sea shells that were once smashed together by some turbulent event. But that's the point: what besides Noah's flood would have done this? Most earthquakes and floods don't make for fossil conditions but what is described in scripture (Genesis 7) makes for perfect fossil making conditions. I can't prove that it was Noah's flood that did it but we also find very similar fossils around the shores of the lake near our home. As far as I know of there are no recorded disasters in our area. Except for the very cold winters we live in one of the safest places in America.

Here's a close-up of the smallest fossil/rock above:

Posted Image

A few days ago we found this while digging and planting our garden:

Posted Image

That one surprised me. Do we have the remains of an early American pioneer buried somewhere in our back yard? Hmm.

Another surprise:

Posted Image

A medallion bearing the likeness of pope John Paul II (no, I'm not catholic). I've lived here for nearly 30 yrs but I have no idea how this object was buried in our back yard but one thing for certain; it's the only object we've found that can be dated with any certainty. (the other medallion, the colorful one, is a medallion on spiritual warfare given to me as a gift from a friend. I used it to help my camera get a better focus).

My point is here that most fossils are formed by cataclysmic conditions. Of course, there are exceptions but, except for the coin & the teethy we found what could have embedded the fossils I listed above? They were each buried less than 1 1/2 feet from the surface.

I remember when I was a kid in Nashville. There was a low place between our place and the house next door, where the bottom of the houses were high. Us kids would go down there and play. We used to find what I now know to be bioclastic limstone. There would be snail and other shells. There was also crinoid stems, which we used to call 'Indian money.' There were small rocks, and one big one we would show other kids. They thought it was cool to see the fossils. There are alot of limestone passes on the highway around Nashville.

Of course, this shows it was all under water. The old earthers say it happened in calm marine conditions, but Nashville is very hilly--big hills all around. Would they say the hills happened after the water was gone? It's been my experience that around coastal areas, there is alot of sand, and the shells are here and there (except Jacksonville, FL which is all shells). These rocks are surrounded by soil, not sand. SO where is the sandstone these fossilized would be in proximity with? Why were there so many little peices mixed in with the soil? Seems like the rocks were deposited there recently if they are mixed in the soil, doesn't it?

#39 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 22 January 2012 - 04:32 AM

I remember when I was a kid in Nashville. There was a low place between our place and the house next door, where the bottom of the houses were high. Us kids would go down there and play. We used to find what I now know to be bioclastic limstone. There would be snail and other shells. There was also crinoid stems, which we used to call 'Indian money.' There were small rocks, and one big one we would show other kids. They thought it was cool to see the fossils. There are alot of limestone passes on the highway around Nashville.

Of course, this shows it was all under water. The old earthers say it happened in calm marine conditions, but Nashville is very hilly--big hills all around. Would they say the hills happened after the water was gone? It's been my experience that around coastal areas, there is alot of sand, and the shells are here and there (except Jacksonville, FL which is all shells). These rocks are surrounded by soil, not sand. SO where is the sandstone these fossilized would be in proximity with? Why were there so many little peices mixed in with the soil? Seems like the rocks were deposited there recently if they are mixed in the soil, doesn't it?


Soils are formed through the weathering of rock material when it is mixed with organic material at the surface. In this case the fossils in the soil almost without doubt came from the marine limestone that you mentioned. Is the limestone found in the hills? If so the hills were created after the ocean waters were gone as the hills are not a site of present deposition. There is sand where beaches exist, but such strand deposits are relatively rare and were probably never in association with the limestone. Soils are derived from the substrate material (they are not deposited underwater) and most likely have simply been included from regolith on top of the limestone.

#40 Seeker25

Seeker25

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • NC

Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:36 AM

I find this topic of interest, and would like to ask a question about it. I am new to this whole geologic timescale notion, but I do believe in the Genesis flood. I just haven't grasp how a flood could deposit the strata. Can somebody clarify that to me? I thnk they formed underwater but how? Thanks, would be grateful to hear all explanations.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users