Jump to content


Photo

Geological Question


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

#1 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 19 February 2011 - 04:59 AM

I was looking at some pictures of hill outcrops the other day. It was beautiful strata, with different hues of red, white, orange, etc. There was one thing I noticed about the folds, anticlines, and synclines in the strata. Most of the time they followed the same pattern horizontally for quite a height, sometimes througout the entire very large outcrop.

Then I saw all the obvious erosion that had taken place to form a hill--a topography. I wanted to ask where are the buried hills of the past that once had grass on them, and trees, soils. If the oceans transgressed multiple times, and then the earth uplifted out of the seas, or the seas lowered, then weathering should have again taken place, and the cycle should have happened again many times. We should see many sedimentary hills buried, with new younger strata coming up hard against it's sides, younger strata juxtaposed to the strata within the hill. Or we should see eroded out valleys, gorges, sinkholes, filled with younger strata.

But the kicker should be on the outline of the old hill, there should be a rather substancial paleosol (ancient soil). Now I realize, in the deluge, old hills might have been covered, but that would be one topogrphy. I want to to know why we don't see many ancient uneven topographies in the strata, complete with hills, cliffs, eroded valleys with ancient soils lining the top of the claystones, limestones, shales, mudstones, sandstones, showing that this was indeed slowly formed.

Instead what do we see in geology. Matching folds from top to bottom in the outcrops. Common lines of bedding in the layers. We don't see a few layers formed and then soil, layers and then soil.

We are told how layer after layer formed horizontally over millions of years. But where is the uneven erosion with "dirt" on it?? Where are all the old topographies??

#2 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 19 February 2011 - 06:00 AM

I was looking at some pictures of hill outcrops the other day.  It was beautiful strata, with different hues of red, white, orange, etc.  There was  one thing I noticed about the folds, anticlines, and synclines in the strata.  Most of the time they followed the same pattern horizontally for quite a height, sometimes througout the entire very large outcrop.

Then I saw all the obvious erosion that had taken place to form a hill--a topography.  I wanted to ask  where are the buried hills of the past that once had grass on them, and trees, soils.  If the oceans transgressed multiple times, and then the earth uplifted out of the seas, or the seas lowered, then weathering should have again taken place, and the cycle should have happened again many times.  We should see many sedimentary hills buried, with new younger strata coming up hard against it's sides, younger strata juxtaposed to the strata within the hill.  Or we should see eroded out valleys, gorges, sinkholes, filled with younger strata. 

But the kicker should be on the outline of the old hill, there should be a rather substancial paleosol (ancient soil).  Now I realize, in the deluge, old hills might have been covered, but that would be one topogrphy.  I want to to know why we don't see many ancient uneven topographies in the strata, complete with hills, cliffs, eroded valleys with ancient soils lining the top of the claystones, limestones, shales, mudstones, sandstones, showing that this was indeed slowly formed. 

Instead what do we see in geology.  Matching folds from top to bottom in the outcrops.  Common lines of bedding in the layers.  We don't see a few layers formed and then soil, layers and then soil. 

We are told how layer after layer formed horizontally over millions of years.  But where is the uneven erosion with "dirt" on it??  Where are all the old topographies??

View Post


I think the answer in general is found in what you posted. "If the oceans transgressed multiple times, and then the earth uplifted out of the seas, or the seas lowered, then weathering should have again taken place, and the cycle should have happened again many times."

Have you visited many cliffed coasts? When transgressions start waves work upon the strata present and erode them. Undermining of the cliffs occurs and they fall and collapse. The strand line of the ocean advances as the cliffs are leveled. There are also land areas such as highlands containing hills or mountains that remained emergent during any given transgression. Transgressions are not continent wide. So hills might well remain above water during a time when seas transgress over other areas of the same continent.

But yes, there are sequences where paleosols do occur alternating with sediments not part of ancient soil profiles. But these would usually be terrestrial deposits and not part of a marine transgression.

#3 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 19 February 2011 - 05:50 PM

I think the answer in general is found in what you posted. "If the oceans transgressed multiple times, and then the earth uplifted out of the seas, or the seas lowered, then weathering should have again taken place, and the cycle should have happened again many times." 

Have you visited many cliffed coasts? When transgressions start waves work upon the strata present and erode them. Undermining of the cliffs occurs and they fall and collapse. The strand line of the ocean advances as the cliffs are leveled. There are also land areas such as highlands containing hills or mountains that remained emergent during any given transgression. Transgressions are not continent wide. So hills might well remain above water during a time when seas transgress over other areas of the same continent.

But yes, there are sequences where paleosols do occur alternating with sediments not part of ancient soil profiles. But these would usually be terrestrial deposits and not part of a marine transgression.

View Post

I don't believe that it would be common for all these topographies to be worked flat before another layer started. If a hill was still exposed for a long time it would weather away, but there should be a portion of it that was being covered, and the top would weather away. But you would still have younger layers running up hard on the side of the base of the hill.

One thing I have read in creationist literature is a lack of evidence of erosion between layers or superposed formations. When what is seen in many cases is a defined uneroded bed between them.

Take limestone, we know it erodes and can form caves. I'm saying the claim that another formation on top of the limestone bedding which is strait or it's folds match the folds in the strata over and under it--it is evidence that there was little time between depositions. Yet geologists emphatically insist there was millions of years in the formations. That's why many creationists don't accept it. It's like you tell us that you have evidence that it took a long time to form, but we don't see it between the layers.

I doubt if there are alternating paleosols that would compare to modern topographies. Perhaps you could give a link, I will read it.

#4 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 19 February 2011 - 07:08 PM

I don't believe that it would be common for all these topographies to be worked flat before another layer started. If a hill was still exposed for a long time it would weather away, but there should be a portion of it that was being covered, and the top would weather away.  But you would still have younger layers running up hard on the side of the base of the hill.

One thing I have read in creationist literature is a lack of evidence of erosion between layers or superposed formations.  When what is seen in many cases is a defined uneroded bed between them. 

Take limestone, we know it erodes and can form caves.  I'm saying the claim that another formation on top of the limestone bedding which  is strait or it's folds match the folds in the strata over and under it--it  is evidence that there was little time between depositions.  Yet geologists emphatically insist there was millions of years in the formations.  That's why many creationists don't accept it.  It's like you tell us that you have evidence that it took a long time to form, but we don't see it between the layers.

I doubt if there are  alternating paleosols that would compare to modern topographies.  Perhaps you could give a link, I will read it.

View Post


The model you give for erosion is not what is observed along coastlines. When prominatories or headlands exist on cliffed coasts waves are focussed upon them accelerating erosion. You can observe all this very easily. Conceptualizing a model that is only in the mind and not testing that hypothesis is somthing I commonly see in creationist conjecture.

The lack of the buried topography you seek is the indication that erosive processes rework the landscape before the deposition of sediments in a transgression. The most interesting factor is the presence or lack of strand deposits. A worldwide flood would have buried existing hills in sediments and we would commonly see them now in outcrop.

The evidence of how great a time gap is present in an unconfomity between layers is shown in the fossils. Creationists make a big deal about an unconformity in the Grand Canyon that is difficult to notice since the lithologies are similar above and below. "Walking out" such contacts usually shows the physical aspects of the gap, that compliment the gap indicated by the contained fossils life.

But where is a place that you thinking of where folded strata contain a claimed unconformity? This is actually quite easy to accomplish, as the folding is subsequent to the deposition of the stratigraphic unit above the unconformable surface.

#5 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 20 February 2011 - 05:48 AM

The model you give for erosion is not what is observed along coastlines. When prominatories or headlands exist on cliffed coasts waves are focussed upon them accelerating erosion. You can observe all this very easily. Conceptualizing a model that is only in the mind and not testing that hypothesis is somthing I commonly see in creationist conjecture.

The lack of the buried topography you seek is the indication that erosive processes rework the landscape before the deposition of sediments in a transgression. The most interesting factor is the presence or lack of strand deposits. A worldwide flood would have buried existing hills in sediments and we would commonly see them now in outcrop.

The evidence of how great a time gap is present in an unconfomity between layers is shown in the fossils. Creationists make a big deal about an unconformity in the Grand Canyon that is difficult to notice since the lithologies are similar above and below. "Walking out" such contacts usually shows the physical aspects of the gap, that compliment the gap indicated by the contained fossils life.

But where is a place that you thinking of where folded strata contain a claimed unconformity? This is actually quite easy to accomplish, as the folding is subsequent to the deposition of the stratigraphic unit above the unconformable surface.

View Post

Did I mention unconformities? I'm talking about lack of evidence for slow depostion in the geological record.

Sorry, Geode. Not all erosions would have been on coastlines. Your model talks about wind deposition also, and lakes, and calm shallow seas, like the Great Lakes in America. Limestone is supposed to have happened in a calm environment. When it was exposed later, it would have begun to weather. When desert dunes began to cover it, or shale in a calm sea or lake, there should have been some uneveness in what is now bedding--because it was a former topography.

Posted Image

Look at the Redwall Limestone. You have the Supai Group above, which is mostly limestone and shale. Why is the limestone plane so straight? Look at the Coconino Sandstone--the same thing can be seen very clearly from miles away.

Why are the planes between the layers so straight? All of these are supposed to be former topographies, which had ecological habits on top them. Why is there no signs of weathering. Where are the limestone caves or karsts? Where are the gorges that small creeks carved out? Where are the hills? Just a flat bedding plane.

As far as the flood, there would be more chance of hills being washed away than a desert sand deposit slowly covering a limestone formation remnant. And there would have been only one topography. You have many topographies to explain.

#6 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 21 February 2011 - 04:22 AM

Did I mention unconformities?  I'm talking about lack of evidence for slow depostion in the geological record. 

Sorry, Geode.  Not all erosions would have been on coastlines.  Your model talks about wind deposition also, and lakes, and calm shallow seas, like the Great Lakes in America.  Limestone is supposed to have happened in a calm environment.  When it was exposed later, it would have begun to weather.  When desert dunes began to cover it, or shale in a calm sea or lake, there should have been some uneveness in what is now bedding--because it was a former topography. 

Posted Image

Look at the Redwall Limestone.  You have the Supai Group above, which is mostly limestone and shale.  Why is the limestone plane so straight? Look at the Coconino Sandstone--the same thing can be seen very clearly from miles away.

Why are the planes between the layers so straight?  All of these are supposed to be former topographies, which had ecological habits on top them.   Why is there no signs of weathering.  Where are the limestone caves or karsts?  Where are the gorges that small creeks carved out?  Where are the hills?  Just a flat bedding plane.

As far as the flood, there would be more chance of hills being washed away than a desert sand deposit slowly covering a limestone formation remnant. And there would have been only one topography.  You have many topographies to explain.

View Post


No, I think I mentioned unconformities because they were very appropriate to the discussion. Understanding them also points to where YECs misunderstand stratigraphy and how time relates to what we find in stratigraphic sections and what we do not find.

You brought up hills not being buried and why they were not found in outline when marine sediments were deposited on top of them. Implicit in that happening is a marine transgression in which a coastline must be involved. It is part and parcel to the process. Of course terrestrial features are subject to erosion, and such erosional features are far more likely to be preserved in some form or another. The contacts between terrestrial deposits often are not linear at all, but I commented upon the case you brought up. If you actually looked at some of the units in the Grand Canyon you would find contacts that are not smooth planar features. Why are creationists so obsessed with the Grand Canyon? I think it actually supports their contentions less than most geologic features.

Why would there only be one topography with a global flood that had "the great fountains of the deep" operative in some places and not others, that to many YECs would have crustal plates crashing against each other in a time frame of weeks, mountains zooming up thousands of feet in days or weeks and sediments being deposited throughout? The utter chaos difies sedimentation in anything like ordered layers in my opinion.

#7 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 22 February 2011 - 09:00 PM

No, I think I mentioned unconformities because they were very appropriate to the discussion.  Understanding them also points to where YECs misunderstand stratigraphy and how time relates to what we find in stratigraphic sections and what we do not find.

View Post

The same principle of sedimentation, or lack thereof that causes unconformities in your model is the same in the flood model. It just happened faster and by different means.

You brought up hills not being buried and why they were not found in outline when marine sediments were deposited on top of them. Implicit in that happening is a marine transgression in which a coastline must be involved. It is part and parcel to the process. Of course terrestrial features are subject to erosion, and such erosional features are far more likely to be preserved in some form or another. The contacts between terrestrial deposits often are not linear at all, but I commented upon the case you brought up. If you actually looked at some of the units in the Grand Canyon you would find contacts that are not smooth planar features.


As far as your comment on hills, not only hills, but canyons. Karsts or caves in limestone. If you have a canyon which has gone deep into the older layers, and it fills back in flat, there would be evidence of that sedimentation. Or there would be signs of landslide inside the canyon. Since there were many topographies, there should be many common evidences of it.

The fact is you are diverting from the apparrent evidence in the canyon. Turbid waters would more easily explain areas of overlap or intrusions. That is not what I am talking about. The current topograhy is as different from the strata underneath as you can get. The overall appearance of the boundaries are "straight. and the current topography is not.

Why would there only be one topography with a global flood that had "the great fountains of the deep" operative in some places and not others,

So there should have been remnants of the original one topography in the flood model. You guys should have many old topographies. And one should give attention to the definition of weathering, as opposed to erosion. Erosion can happen during catastorphic processes, but weathering is confined to slower processes like we see on the surface now.

I did a search and found this link which purports to have disproved the flood by finding an ancient topography. http://home.entouch....dmd/canyons.htm

They found one topography 5200 meters down. Where are the other ones on top? Why did they only find one? They show how it has all the features of current topography in the same area in China. So why didn't this happen many times, and why did this topography remain so intact?

Posted Image

In my opinion, this seismic graph shows current indicators. The current moved the sediment from right to left. The karst is supposedly hardened limestone, so it shows resistance to the current. You can see the sediments building on the right, until they reached the top of the karst.

Notice on the left of the karst there are dipping sedimentary lines. Also on the left, two of the lines space into a large sedimentary deposit, showing the layer was laid more rapidly in approximately the same time (they are in the same area, so one assumes the sedimentation rates should be the same). This shows the sediments coming to the top of the karst on the right spilled over quickly to the left, causing the left side to fill after the right side was filled to the top. You can see the spillover continuing for several layers up. When the left side filled sufficiently, the right side and the left side began to fill accrossed more evenly, and more so as you ascend.

Now in a geological timescale model, if you have current indicators, according to Geode, the karst should have disintegrated. If this was a transgression, it should have eroded the karst. But the karst is still there. This again shows the sedimentation was rapid because the karst has not weathered away in the presence of obvious current indicators.

One of the most important things is the presence of parallel lines in "sharp" features. That is many of the sedimentary lines follow the underneath lines in parallel, especially when there is sharp contrast in the inclines so that the lines form points. This shows rapid formation of the layers, because there was no time for weathering of the sharp linear features. You can see these "points" at the top of the karst peak, indicating the obstruction of the karst as the sediments hit it as they moved in current to the left.

Karst uplift lines show that the right slope of the karst was uplifted rather than eroded into a slope. The karst was probably hardened. Was the karst uplifted in during the waters of creation? I would tend to think that, seeing there seems to be weathering on the slope. Any comments?

#8 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 22 January 2012 - 05:40 AM

The same principle of sedimentation, or lack thereof that causes unconformities in your model is the same in the flood model. It just happened faster and by different means.


I have yet to see a very good explanation of unconformities in the flood model, particularly angular unconformites.

As far as your comment on hills, not only hills, but canyons. Karsts or caves in limestone. If you have a canyon which has gone deep into the older layers, and it fills back in flat, there would be evidence of that sedimentation. Or there would be signs of landslide inside the canyon. Since there were many topographies, there should be many common evidences of it.


As I have posted before, most topographies are not preserved. But the very "fill" you mention here is evidence of sedimentation on its own.

The fact is you are diverting from the apparrent evidence in the canyon. Turbid waters would more easily explain areas of overlap or intrusions. That is not what I am talking about. The current topograhy is as different from the strata underneath as you can get. The overall appearance of the boundaries are "straight. and the current topography is not.


Why would turbid waters better explain overlap and intrusions? Stratigraphy and surface topography do not have to conform, and quite commonly do not.

So there should have been remnants of the original one topography in the flood model. You guys should have many old topographies. And one should give attention to the definition of weathering, as opposed to erosion. Erosion can happen during catastorphic processes, but weathering is confined to slower processes like we see on the surface now.


And yet there are places in the stratigraphic record where there are repeated instances of incised valley fills, which is evidence of more than one topography.

We see both weathering and erosion in action on the surface of the earth every day so I don't think making a distinction between the two is relevant. I have watched erosion occur alongside quiet little streams with nothing catastrophic being in play.

I did a search and found this link which purports to have disproved the flood by finding an ancient topography. http://home.entouch....dmd/canyons.htm

They found one topography 5200 meters down. Where are the other ones on top? Why did they only find one? They show how it has all the features of current topography in the same area in China. So why didn't this happen many times, and why did this topography remain so intact?

Posted Image


Well, first of all the seismic section shown seems to have a depth of 3500 (presumably meters) and not 5200 meters. I think that figure was in reference to a different place. A vertical scale in not given, but it is obvious that there is section above and below that is not shown so making any comments about what should or should not be seen in that section is probably not appropriate to this discussion.

It is not stated that this section is from the same place that a similar topography exists today, I think it is stated that it is in a different place. But if you are holding yourself to only one topography in a flood model that would give you a problem since there would be at least two, the present one and the buried one.

In my opinion, this seismic graph shows current indicators. The current moved the sediment from right to left. The karst is supposedly hardened limestone, so it shows resistance to the current. You can see the sediments building on the right, until they reached the top of the karst.

Notice on the left of the karst there are dipping sedimentary lines. Also on the left, two of the lines space into a large sedimentary deposit, showing the layer was laid more rapidly in approximately the same time (they are in the same area, so one assumes the sedimentation rates should be the same). This shows the sediments coming to the top of the karst on the right spilled over quickly to the left, causing the left side to fill after the right side was filled to the top. You can see the spillover continuing for several layers up. When the left side filled sufficiently, the right side and the left side began to fill accrossed more evenly, and more so as you ascend.


There are paleoslopes indicated away from the Karst upland and labeled Karst slope on both sides. Your explanation would require the sediment to defy gravity, and it would have to be deposited uphill. We do not see this in action during sedimentation today, and if it occured in the past it would come under the heading of a miracle. But then again much of the flood model must invoke what really amounts to miracles to work. Also, as indicated in the text that went with this seismic section, there are sediments that show an erosive surface. There is in fact an apparent angular unconformity on the left hand side. That also goes directly against your explanation.

Now in a geological timescale model, if you have current indicators, according to Geode, the karst should have disintegrated. If this was a transgression, it should have eroded the karst. But the karst is still there. This again shows the sedimentation was rapid because the karst has not weathered away in the presence of obvious current indicators.


I see no real "current indicators" here, and would not expect to see any as the scale of the seismic is not that precise. One simply cannot see features on the scale necessary. There is evidence of stratified rocks other than the karst and surrounding the Karst highland.

But you are putting words into Geode's mouth here. A karst in not a typical form and is rather special in that its very existance is proof of resistance to erosion. That is what forms karsts. I live where karsts exist at the coastline and it produces a rather dramatic sight with sheer cliffs rising from the sea with sedimentation obvious all around the cliffs or even where some islands have formed from the karst. There are sediments slowly accumulating around them. Come to Thailand and see them for yourself, or watch "The Man with the Golden Gun" where they can be seen at the beginning and end of the film. A transgression is currently depositing sediments around them and a remnant of such forms appear to be in line for preservation.

One of the most important things is the presence of parallel lines in "sharp" features. That is many of the sedimentary lines follow the underneath lines in parallel, especially when there is sharp contrast in the inclines so that the lines form points. This shows rapid formation of the layers, because there was no time for weathering of the sharp linear features. You can see these "points" at the top of the karst peak, indicating the obstruction of the karst as the sediments hit it as they moved in current to the left.


But weathering / erosive events are shown not only in the formation of the karst itself (a point that Glenn Morton makes in the link that you are avoiding) and also in the sediment that was deposited around the karst highland as I have already indicated. The weathering of karsts with dendritic patterns was given as strong evidence against the flood model (you also have avoided that point).

Karst uplift lines show that the right slope of the karst was uplifted rather than eroded into a slope. The karst was probably hardened. Was the karst uplifted in during the waters of creation? I would tend to think that, seeing there seems to be weathering on the slope. Any comments?


What uplift lines, what are they? This is not something I have encountered in discussions of seismic sections.

Yes, of course the material of the karst was hard, it had to be to withstand being eroded away. The slope features look very much like the weathered surfaces of karst features today, which also was a point of the article. But you are indicating both uplift and weathering here so I am confused. I also do not see how waters are going to uplift rocks, but perhaps this is another miracle that can be used in the flood model.

I see no evidence here for a flood model, but agree with Glenn Morton that just the opposite is shown.

#9 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 22 January 2012 - 12:29 PM

The same principle of sedimentation, or lack thereof that causes unconformities in your model is the same in the flood model. It just happened faster and by different means.



As far as your comment on hills, not only hills, but canyons. Karsts or caves in limestone. If you have a canyon which has gone deep into the older layers, and it fills back in flat, there would be evidence of that sedimentation. Or there would be signs of landslide inside the canyon. Since there were many topographies, there should be many common evidences of it.

The fact is you are diverting from the apparrent evidence in the canyon. Turbid waters would more easily explain areas of overlap or intrusions. That is not what I am talking about. The current topograhy is as different from the strata underneath as you can get. The overall appearance of the boundaries are "straight. and the current topography is not.


So there should have been remnants of the original one topography in the flood model. You guys should have many old topographies. And one should give attention to the definition of weathering, as opposed to erosion. Erosion can happen during catastorphic processes, but weathering is confined to slower processes like we see on the surface now.

I did a search and found this link which purports to have disproved the flood by finding an ancient topography. http://home.entouch....dmd/canyons.htm

They found one topography 5200 meters down. Where are the other ones on top? Why did they only find one? They show how it has all the features of current topography in the same area in China. So why didn't this happen many times, and why did this topography remain so intact?

Posted Image

In my opinion, this seismic graph shows current indicators. The current moved the sediment from right to left. The karst is supposedly hardened limestone, so it shows resistance to the current. You can see the sediments building on the right, until they reached the top of the karst.

Notice on the left of the karst there are dipping sedimentary lines. Also on the left, two of the lines space into a large sedimentary deposit, showing the layer was laid more rapidly in approximately the same time (they are in the same area, so one assumes the sedimentation rates should be the same). This shows the sediments coming to the top of the karst on the right spilled over quickly to the left, causing the left side to fill after the right side was filled to the top. You can see the spillover continuing for several layers up. When the left side filled sufficiently, the right side and the left side began to fill accrossed more evenly, and more so as you ascend.

Now in a geological timescale model, if you have current indicators, according to Geode, the karst should have disintegrated. If this was a transgression, it should have eroded the karst. But the karst is still there. This again shows the sedimentation was rapid because the karst has not weathered away in the presence of obvious current indicators.

One of the most important things is the presence of parallel lines in "sharp" features. That is many of the sedimentary lines follow the underneath lines in parallel, especially when there is sharp contrast in the inclines so that the lines form points. This shows rapid formation of the layers, because there was no time for weathering of the sharp linear features. You can see these "points" at the top of the karst peak, indicating the obstruction of the karst as the sediments hit it as they moved in current to the left.

Karst uplift lines show that the right slope of the karst was uplifted rather than eroded into a slope. The karst was probably hardened. Was the karst uplifted in during the waters of creation? I would tend to think that, seeing there seems to be weathering on the slope. Any comments?


Thanks for posting that. I've been looking for ancient topographys and this example proves the prediction. It's exactly what would be expected if there was global flood.


Thanks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users