Jump to content


Photo

Questions Concerning The Global Flood Models


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

#21 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:51 PM

Maybe you are right about the Redwall limestone being part of the flood deposits, if so, couldn't it fall into cracks that occurred after the flood?

Is it possible for conglomerate to form under the surface? I emailed Dr. Silvestru, who works for CMI, about the chunks of Redwall Limestone in the conglomerate of the Surprise Canyon Formation and he said:

"Well, I would need to see the evidence for that. I have found some pictures online, but none conclusive. Fact is I came across such claims in places like Joggins, NS where the literature clearly states there are ancient river channels in the sediments but I had a close look at them and they lack almost any element that would indicate a riverbed so I concluded the diagnosis was wrong. I actually wrote on something similar in Sardinia (http://creation.com/...leokarst-solved) and others too (http://creation.com/...lled-paleokarst). As for the conglomerate with Redwall clasts, I need to see pictures and thin section identification of the clasts (confirming them being Redwall Limestone)."

#22 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:04 PM

No. Water lenses were generated at multiple depths within the sediment/water mixture. Within some of those lenses, certain creatures were able to move about for a limited amount of time.


Ok, that sounds like the most reasonable explanation, now what about the Toroweap and Kaibab formations. These show a shallow marine environment, how is it possible for this to form during the flood? Surely this is a post-flood scenario?

#23 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 22 February 2012 - 07:06 AM

Ok, that sounds like the most reasonable explanation, now what about the Toroweap and Kaibab formations. These show a shallow marine environment, how is it possible for this to form during the flood? Surely this is a post-flood scenario?

Same scenario.

#24 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:58 AM

Same scenario.


This doesn't seem logical at all to me unless I'm missing something, I do not see how an entire marine environment including corals can form during all that flood sedimentation.

#25 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 22 February 2012 - 11:56 AM

What corals?

#26 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 26 February 2012 - 12:41 PM

I've just come across an objection raised by Ian Juby to the Coconino Sandstone being an eolian deposit in this article: http://ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
He says that, "The crossbeds we see throughout the west go on for many, many miles with no windward side evident. This is exactly what we would expect with a continentally-deposited crossbed layer, and completely contrary to what we see with modern sand dunes."


These crossbeds have been produced in more than one experiment.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Here is the process of how these layers formed horizontally instead by sucessive layering by the law of superposition.

Posted Image

#27 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 26 February 2012 - 12:49 PM

This doesn't seem logical at all to me unless I'm missing something, I do not see how an entire marine environment including corals can form during all that flood sedimentation.


The gamates produced by corals are swept away by currents and later attach to the bottom surface and start to grow if conditions are favorable. Even anemones have a swimming larval stage...but, what is most important to note, is the fact that the oldest living reef can only be extrapolated back to well after the flood.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=73421

#28 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 26 February 2012 - 05:48 PM

These crossbeds have been produced in more than one experiment.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Here is the process of how these layers formed horizontally instead by sucessive layering by the law of superposition.

Posted Image

Thanks for the images. I don't doubt that water can deposit cross beds or that superposition is always the answer, but I'm just trying to figure out how we can tell whether the cross beds were deposited by wind or water.

#29 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:45 PM

Once again, Paul Garner's work may be worth a read. But I cannot find it to do so.

#30 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 03 March 2012 - 01:19 AM

The gamates produced by corals are swept away by currents and later attach to the bottom surface and start to grow if conditions are favorable. Even anemones have a swimming larval stage...but, what is most important to note, is the fact that the oldest living reef can only be extrapolated back to well after the flood.


Ok I read that there were corals in the Kaibab layer but I see they were not referring to coral reefs, but the presence of corals. My bad.

Even so, in a flood model that claims the rapid sedimentation of marine life, to have another marine environment in the middle of the flood showing sharks teeth, corals etc etc seems unlikely. Why were they there, did the sedimentation rates slow down for a bit for outside marine life to swim into the area and then be also raidly covered with sediment? I'm trying to understand the processes that create this second Kaibab marine layer right in the middle of the flood deposits, it seems post-flood to me.

#31 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 03 March 2012 - 02:32 AM

Ok I read that there were corals in the Kaibab layer but I see they were not referring to coral reefs, but the presence of corals. My bad.

Even so, in a flood model that claims the rapid sedimentation of marine life, to have another marine environment in the middle of the flood showing sharks teeth, corals etc etc seems unlikely. Why were they there, did the sedimentation rates slow down for a bit for outside marine life to swim into the area and then be also raidly covered with sediment? I'm trying to understand the processes that create this second Kaibab marine layer right in the middle of the flood deposits, it seems post-flood to me.


I've come across an argument for most of the Grand Canyon (Tapeats to Kaibab) being laid down by the flood. The East Kaibab Monocline:

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

The normal explanation for this is that heat and pressure caused the rock layers to bend very slowly without breaking or cracking, but rocks that are folded by heat and pressure should become metamorphic, at least in the apex area of the folds (when you bend a metal plate, temperature increases in the apex of the fold).[1][2] For example, quartz sandstone should turn into a quartzite. You should see metamorphic minerals or recrystallization in the rock due to such plastic behavior.[3][4]

"But such metamorphic minerals or recrystallization due to such plastic behavior is not observed in these rocks. The sandstone and limestone in the folds are identical to sedimentary layers elsewhere.

The only logical conclusion is that the 440-million-year delay between deposition and folding never happened! Instead, the Tapeats-Kaibab strata sequence was laid down in rapid succession early during the year of the global cataclysmic Genesis Flood, followed by uplift of the Kaibab Plateau within the last months of the Flood. This alone explains the folding of the whole strata sequence without appreciable fracturing."[4]

Ref.

[1] R. H. Vernon, Metamorphic Processes: Reactions and Microstructure Development (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1976); K. Bucher and M. Frey, Petrogenesis of Metamorphic Rocks, 7th ed. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2002).

[2] Emil Silvestru, "Should atheists be free to teach what they believe?; and the 'folding of solid rocks'," Creation Ministries International (10 October 2009); http://creation.com/...teaching-rights

[3] Ref 1; G. H. Davis and S. J. Reynolds, "Deformation Mechanisms and Microstructures," Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996), pp. 150-202.

[4] Andrew A. Snelling, "Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured," Answers in Genesis (March 15, 2009); http://www.answersin...d-not-fractured

#32 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 03 March 2012 - 10:01 PM

Dr. Brown uses the uplift to raise his Grand and Hopi Lakes in order for them to breach and carve the canyon. So uplif (in response to the sinking Rockies) continued for maybe 4-500 years after the flood.

#33 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 04 March 2012 - 04:56 AM

I've come across an argument for most of the Grand Canyon (Tapeats to Kaibab) being laid down by the flood. The East Kaibab Monocline:


Ok , I have believed that global upheavals were concentrated during the flood and the first couple of hundred years after the flood. I am thinking that the shallow marine environment was post-flood and folded before hardening. Otherwise how do you have this "eco-system" during the flood layers when the flood model has this "lowest first rapid sedimentation" approach. Where did this marine life travel from during the flood if all the bottom dwelling marine life is way earlier in the "Cambrian" layers of the Grand Canyon?

#34 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 04 March 2012 - 05:41 AM

I am thinking that the shallow marine environment was post-flood and folded before hardening.


Can I ask why believe it was a shallow marine environment?

Are you saying that all of the layers were still wet enough to fold after the post-flood layers were deposited? If not, how could the post-flood layers be deposited on this 90 degree angle:

Posted Image

Where did this marine life travel from during the flood if all the bottom dwelling marine life is way earlier in the "Cambrian" layers of the Grand Canyon?


Perhaps this marine life washed in from some distant location? I imagine the flow of the current switching directions throughout the flood and so you'd have these marine creatures from a different location get picked up and brought here. Isn't there marine life in the Redwall Limestone too, right in the middle?

#35 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 04 March 2012 - 11:40 AM

Can I ask why believe it was a shallow marine environment?

Are you saying that all of the layers were still wet enough to fold after the post-flood layers were deposited? If not, how could the post-flood layers be deposited on this 90 degree angle:

Posted Image

Yes I believe it remained moist enough to fold.

Perhaps this marine life washed in from some distant location? I imagine the flow of the current switching directions throughout the flood and so you'd have these marine creatures from a different location get picked up and brought here. Isn't there marine life in the Redwall Limestone too, right in the middle?


I'm not sure about the Redwall, and why wasn't that marine life buried quickly? On the balance of logic I still feel that the Coconino was wind exposed after looking at both views on that, and the Kaibab was a subsequent marine layer, so this is al academic to me to find out how the flood model would explain this all. A post-flood model is a lot easier, the coconino was a desert and silt layer after the flood and subsequently submerged by a marine environment later.

#36 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 04 March 2012 - 07:15 PM

Yes I believe it remained moist enough to fold.


Okay.

I'm not sure about the Redwall, and why wasn't that marine life buried quickly?


In the Redwall Limestone (I believe the Whitmore Wash Member) of the Grand Canyon, many crinoid heads are found "in a matrix of broken and sorted columnals. Rapid burial by an ocean current is indicated, because the same water that sorted the columnals also must have buried the crinoid heads before decomposition."
- S.S. Beus, "Redwall Limestone and Surprise Canyon Formation," Grand Canyon Geology, S.S. Beus and M. Morales (eds), Oxford University Press and Museum of Arizona Press, pp. 119-145, 1990.

On the balance of logic I still feel that the Coconino was wind exposed after looking at both views on that, and the Kaibab was a subsequent marine layer, so this is al academic to me to find out how the flood model would explain this all.


Doesn't the East Kaibab Monocline refute that? If the Kaibab and the layers under the Coconino were still soft enough to fold, how could there have been time for a desert to exist? Shouldn't the rocks have solidified by then and then fracture when the layers were being folded?

What are your reasons for believing it was a desert? I still have questions about it too.

A post-flood model is a lot easier, the coconino was a desert and silt layer after the flood and subsequently submerged by a marine environment later.


One of the only things I've heard against the desert interpretation is what Ian Juby said:

"The crossbeds we see throughout the west go on for many, many miles with no windward side evident. This is exactly what we would expect with a continentally-[water] deposited crossbed layer, and completely contrary to what we see with modern sand dunes."
http://ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

Of course, that'd be pretty hard to try and verify.

#37 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 04 March 2012 - 11:32 PM

why wasn't that marine life buried quickly?


I thought you were talking about the Redwall Limestone up above, but maybe it was just a coincidence that they weren't buried. Like I've said, I don't see the flood working uniformly throughout the entire earth. Things had to be stable in some places for Noah to survive and for sea creatures to survive. Then you have the transgressions and regressions, but I can't be sure why those creatures wouldn't have been buried quickly.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Yahoo (1)