Jump to content


Photo

Questions Concerning The Global Flood Models


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

#1 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:58 AM

Does anyone know how a global flood model would answer these criticisms?

Concerning the Redwall Limestone:

"Carved into its top is an extensive channel network up to 400 feet deep filled by the Surprise Canyon Formation. Conglomerate rock is part of the Surprise Canyon Formation, and the large rocks in the conglomerate are chunks of Redwall Limestone. This means the Redwall Limestone had already hardened when the Surprise Canyon Formation was formed." - Tim Helble, "Are the creation ministries shooting straight with us (part 1)," Slide 140, http://www.slideshar...-with-us-part-1


Concerning the Coconino Sandstone:

Why would such rapid and catastrophic deposition result in a formation that is devoid of body fossils from plants/animals (including teeth, vertebrae, and other sand-sized bones)?

How could animals leave trace fossils (footprints) if the water was flowing several meters per second?

Why doesn't the Coconino Sandstone contain large rip-up clasts from the underlying Hermit Shale (the contact is flat, and even contains mudcracks filled in by sand from the Coconino)?

I'm also wondering if someone has written a rebuttal to the criticisms leveled by Timothy K. Helble's against the idea that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited by water? They can be found in this web slideshow: http://www.asa3onlin...-flood-geology/

Thanks for reading.

#2 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 15 February 2012 - 10:43 AM

I can't vouch for the validity of these Coconino Sandstone studies as I haven't read much background for them, but Paul Garner has two reports on the matter mentioned to through this page.

But I think there are many valid challenges to the work Austin and Snelling produce. Which is why I'm not much of a fan. ;)

#3 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 15 February 2012 - 04:57 PM

I can't vouch for the validity of these Coconino Sandstone studies as I haven't read much background for them, but Paul Garner has two reports on the matter mentioned to through this page.

But I think there are many valid challenges to the work Austin and Snelling produce. Which is why I'm not much of a fan. ;)


Thanks for the link and I accidently posted an article by Heble, instead of the slideshow. Here's the slideshow: http://www.slideshar...-by-noahs-flood

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."

Can anyone give an example of where this is not the case?

#4 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 15 February 2012 - 09:41 PM

Water was required to lithification the sandstone, regardless of how it was deposited. But here is an alternative explanation. The sediments were not bedded as they are while they were the topmost layer:

Cross-Bedded Sandstone. Sand layers had the greatest water content, because sand grains are somewhat rounded, leaving relatively large gaps for water between the particles. Therefore, sand layers were the most fluid during the massive liquefaction that accompanied the compression event. Deceleration forced the sand forward, displacing the water backward. Horizontally compressed sand layers would have slid, tipped, buckled, and beveled individual layers and blocks of layers, forming what is known as cross-bedded sandstone.

-source.



#5 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:31 AM

Water was required to lithification the sandstone, regardless of how it was deposited. But here is an alternative explanation. The sediments were not bedded as they are while they were the topmost layer:

Cross-Bedded Sandstone. Sand layers had the greatest water content, because sand grains are somewhat rounded, leaving relatively large gaps for water between the particles. Therefore, sand layers were the most fluid during the massive liquefaction that accompanied the compression event. Deceleration forced the sand forward, displacing the water backward. Horizontally compressed sand layers would have slid, tipped, buckled, and beveled individual layers and blocks of layers, forming what is known as cross-bedded sandstone.


-source.


So, you're saying the cross-beds weren't formed by sand waves, but by liquefaction under the surface?

It seems like bedded dolomite, dolomitic ooids, dolomitic clasts and dolomite cement has been found within the Coconino sandstone.(1)(2) Which apparently points toward water being involved.

TalkOrigins says: "Tracks of small athropods, attributable to spiders, centipedes, millipedes, and scorpions, occur abundantly in the Coconino Sandstone. Some of these trackways can only be made on completely dry sand."(3)

I'm wondering how that could be explained.

(1) S. Cheung, R. Strom, J.H. Whitmore, "Persistence of Dolomite in the Coconino Sandstone, Northern and Central Arizona," 2010 Creation Geology Society Abstracts, http://www.cedarvill...proceedings.pdf

(2) Cheung, S. P., R. Strom, J. H. Whitmore and P. G. Garner, "Occurrence of dolomite beds, clasts, ooids and unidentified microfossils in the Coconino Sandstone," Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-4, Vol. 41, No. 7, p. 119, (2009), http://gsa.confex.co...ract_161247.htm

(3) http://www.talkorigi...c/CC/CC365.html

#6 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 16 February 2012 - 05:31 PM

So, you're saying the cross-beds weren't formed by sand waves, but by liquefaction under the surface?

Maybe so.

It seems like bedded dolomite, dolomitic ooids, dolomitic clasts and dolomite cement has been found within the Coconino sandstone.(1)(2) Which apparently points toward water being involved.

Are there any sedimentary rocks that did not lithify after being drowned?

TalkOrigins says: "Tracks of small athropods, attributable to spiders, centipedes, millipedes, and scorpions, occur abundantly in the Coconino Sandstone. Some of these trackways can only be made on completely dry sand."(3)

Animal tracks need to be cemented in place almost immediately after being made. If you have water resistant bugs and vertebrates walking around in a water lens, their tracks will be encased gently and all that is then required is the removal of the water. Tracks made on a dry surface must survive the elements until they are somehow buried and lithified.

#7 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 17 February 2012 - 01:27 AM

Maybe so.

Interesting and something that I'll definitely keep in mind.

Are there any sedimentary rocks that did not lithify after being drowned?

I have no idea. I could only read the abstracts of those papers

Animal tracks need to be cemented in place almost immediately after being made. If you have water resistant bugs and vertebrates walking around in a water lens, their tracks will be encased gently and all that is then required is the removal of the water. Tracks made on a dry surface must survive the elements until they are somehow buried and lithified.

Good point. They would especially have been destroyed quickly in a desert with wind blowing sand everywhere. This may sound like a dumb question, but what is a water lens? I'm picturing a very thin layer of water on the surface.

#8 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:58 AM

Does anyone know how a global flood model would answer these criticisms?

Concerning the Redwall Limestone:

"Carved into its top is an extensive channel network up to 400 feet deep filled by the Surprise Canyon Formation. Conglomerate rock is part of the Surprise Canyon Formation, and the large rocks in the conglomerate are chunks of Redwall Limestone. This means the Redwall Limestone had already hardened when the Surprise Canyon Formation was formed." - Tim Helble, "Are the creation ministries shooting straight with us (part 1)," Slide 140, http://www.slideshar...-with-us-part-1

Concerning the Coconino Sandstone:

Why would such rapid and catastrophic deposition result in a formation that is devoid of body fossils from plants/animals (including teeth, vertebrae, and other sand-sized bones)?

How could animals leave trace fossils (footprints) if the water was flowing several meters per second?

Why doesn't the Coconino Sandstone contain large rip-up clasts from the underlying Hermit Shale (the contact is flat, and even contains mudcracks filled in by sand from the Coconino)?

I'm also wondering if someone has written a rebuttal to the criticisms leveled by Timothy K. Helble's against the idea that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited by water? They can be found in this web slideshow: http://www.asa3onlin...-flood-geology/

Thanks for reading.


Good points you bring up here. I believe in a flood model that is more restricted to what is known as the Permian-triassic boundary rather then being a later event that explains the layers right down to the early Cambrian period. I believe it starts with the Supai Group and ends with the Coconino Sandstone. The flood caused the eroding of the uppermost section of the Redwall limestone.

#9 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 17 February 2012 - 09:21 AM

I have no idea. I could only read the abstracts of those papers

I've heard that there is some rust-like process that might lithify sand - but I didn't buy it. I think it's fair to say that every sedimentary rock we find was drowned before turning into rock. That fact defeats eolian origin for anything. :)

Good point. They would especially have been destroyed quickly in a desert with wind blowing sand everywhere. This may sound like a dumb question, but what is a water lens? I'm picturing a very thin layer of water on the surface.


Part of the liquefaction process. When water is forced downward into the sediment and then the pressure released, it entrains particles to move upward or downward. As this continues, layers begin to form. The layers form as movement of water sorts sediments. But the sorting is separated when a water lens forms. That is - when water more quickly flows into one layer than it does out of it then over time the water layer will thicken into a lens. These things can form at multiple depths and generated the stratification we see.

It's experimentally verifiable with a load of sediment and a means to reverse the water flow vertically (try a large drum with a pipe leading into the bottom and repeatedly fill and drain it).

More about liquefaction and water lenses here.

#10 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 18 February 2012 - 01:36 AM

Concerning the Coconino Sandstone:


More specifically , I don't know much about geology, but I wonder if the evidence would contradict this scenario:
The Coconino Sandstone represents the last deposits of the flood, as the floodwaters were receding after 6 months of flooding. Fossil deposits had already occurred prior to the Coconino sedimentation because bodies settle to the bottom of the ocean within weeks of drowning and so no flood fossils exist there. Water still existed under the sand when the surface of the sand was drying up, and so the Hermit shale started cracking up and drying up as this water dried up, and the Coconino Sediments then fell into these cracks. Post-flood sands showed desert type conditions with footprints and blowing sands during the post-flood anoxic ocean/methane stage when the world was filled with deserts and dry land animals proliferated but slat water creatures battled to survive. Then this huge weight of flood deposits subsided slightly into the magma, becoming a marine environment during the stage when oceans had re-oxygenated. During this period seawater soaked into the sands, showing signs of a marine environment. Further sediments from rivers etc combined with marine fossils of this shallow sea then created the post-flood Kaibab layer.

This is what the evidence seems to point to from my naive layman's perspective.

#11 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 18 February 2012 - 11:26 AM

Does anyone know how a global flood model would answer these criticisms?

Concerning the Redwall Limestone:

"Carved into its top is an extensive channel network up to 400 feet deep filled by the Surprise Canyon Formation. Conglomerate rock is part of the Surprise Canyon Formation, and the large rocks in the conglomerate are chunks of Redwall Limestone. This means the Redwall Limestone had already hardened when the Surprise Canyon Formation was formed." - Tim Helble, "Are the creation ministries shooting straight with us (part 1)," Slide 140, http://www.slideshar...-with-us-part-1


There are only two channels in the entire stara that extends for hundreds of miles. How could erosion only occur in two adjacent channels and nowhere else? They are explained by Austin as fluid escape channels by tons sediment pressing water out of the strata in a hyperconcentrated flow that killed an enire population of billions of orthocone nautiliods.

The Redwall Limestone is also interbedded with the Muav in places, which could only happen during contemporaneous deposition, despite the belief of OE's that place an unconformity of ~180 million years by the circular dating of these strata by the fossils they contain.


Enjoy.

#12 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:55 PM

Good points you bring up here. I believe in a flood model that is more restricted to what is known as the Permian-triassic boundary rather then being a later event that explains the layers right down to the early Cambrian period. I believe it starts with the Supai Group and ends with the Coconino Sandstone. The flood caused the eroding of the uppermost section of the Redwall limestone.

You don't think the Redwall Limestone is too extensive for normal deposition? Especially if what jason777 said is true, about it being deposited contemporaneously with the Muav? The chunks of Redwall Limestone in the congolmerate rocks of the Surprise Canyon Formation does seem like a problem to me though, so you may be right.

More specifically , I don't know much about geology, but I wonder if the evidence would contradict this scenario:
The Coconino Sandstone represents the last deposits of the flood, as the floodwaters were receding after 6 months of flooding. Fossil deposits had already occurred prior to the Coconino sedimentation because bodies settle to the bottom of the ocean within weeks of drowning and so no flood fossils exist there. Water still existed under the sand when the surface of the sand was drying up, and so the Hermit shale started cracking up and drying up as this water dried up, and the Coconino Sediments then fell into these cracks.

This study by J.H. Whitmore and R. Strom tries to show that the sand filled cracks in the Hermit Formation were not due to desiccation. One of the evidences they give in the abstract is that the Hermit Formation lacks the clay sized particles that are commonly present on cracked playa surfaces. You can read the abstract here, on page 8: http://www.cedarvill...proceedings.pdf

Post-flood sands showed desert type conditions with footprints and blowing sands during the post-flood anoxic ocean/methane stage when the world was filled with deserts and dry land animals proliferated but slat water creatures battled to survive. Then this huge weight of flood deposits subsided slightly into the magma, becoming a marine environment during the stage when oceans had re-oxygenated. During this period seawater soaked into the sands, showing signs of a marine environment. Further sediments from rivers etc combined with marine fossils of this shallow sea then created the post-flood Kaibab layer.

This is what the evidence seems to point to from my naive layman's perspective.

That sounds like an interesting possibility.

I've heard that there is some rust-like process that might lithify sand - but I didn't buy it. I think it's fair to say that every sedimentary rock we find was drowned before turning into rock. That fact defeats eolian origin for anything. :)

Wouldn't they just say that it was a desert and was later drowned?

Part of the liquefaction process. When water is forced downward into the sediment and then the pressure released, it entrains particles to move upward or downward. As this continues, layers begin to form. The layers form as movement of water sorts sediments. But the sorting is separated when a water lens forms. That is - when water more quickly flows into one layer than it does out of it then over time the water layer will thicken into a lens. These things can form at multiple depths and generated the stratification we see.

It's experimentally verifiable with a load of sediment and a means to reverse the water flow vertically (try a large drum with a pipe leading into the bottom and repeatedly fill and drain it).

More about liquefaction and water lenses here.

Very interesting and thanks for the link. I'm going to read all about it.

There are only two channels in the entire stara that extends for hundreds of miles. How could erosion only occur in two adjacent channels and nowhere else? They are explained by Austin as fluid escape channels by tons sediment pressing water out of the strata in a hyperconcentrated flow that killed an enire population of billions of orthocone nautiliods.

That makes sense and thank you for pointing it out, but I still don't know how chunks of Redwall Limestone got into the conglomerate rock of the Surprise Canyon Formation. I don't know about another way to explain it, other than the Redwall Limestone being hardened rock by then.


The Redwall Limestone is also interbedded with the Muav in places, which could only happen during contemporaneous deposition, despite the belief of OE's that place an unconformity of ~180 million years by the circular dating of these strata by the fossils they contain.

Enjoy.

Thank you for pointing that out also. Very cool.

#13 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 18 February 2012 - 10:13 PM

You don't think the Redwall Limestone is too extensive for normal deposition? Especially if what jason777 said is true, about it being deposited contemporaneously with the Muav? The chunks of Redwall Limestone in the congolmerate rocks of the Surprise Canyon Formation does seem like a problem to me though, so you may be right.

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?

his study by J.H. Whitmore and R. Strom tries to show that the sand filled cracks in the Hermit Formation were not due to desiccation. One of the evidences they give in the abstract is that the Hermit Formation lacks the clay sized particles that are commonly present on cracked playa surfaces. You can read the abstract here, on page 8: http://www.cedarvill...proceedings.pdf


Ok, I looked up that study, and also looked up the fissility of shale. It appears shale is known for its fissility and this is partly what defines shale as different to the less fissile mudstones that have a similar composition. So it appears that shale is fissile even though the ratio of clay to other minerals is variable (ref Wikipedia: shale). Either way it makes no difference to my projection, whatever the cause of cracking of the Hermit Shale , it occurred underneath the first layers of Coconino and therefore the Coconino deposits fell into the cracks, and Whitmore and Strom do not have a flood-based explanation for it, just stating that mud cracks need to be examined more.

#14 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 19 February 2012 - 10:17 AM

Wouldn't they just say that it was a desert and was later drowned?

Probably. But the drowning would destroy any eolian bedding.

#15 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 20 February 2012 - 01:09 AM

Probably. But the drowning would destroy any eolian bedding.


I thought that eolian formations were formed by rainfalls hardening a layer and then sands blowing on top of it. This hardened layer remains fossilised as the weight of more sand pressurises it into sandstone. Then the marine environment later develops over the sandstone layers, possibly washing away the looser sand, the new sediments settling on the hardened sandstone layers.

#16 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 20 February 2012 - 10:15 AM

I thought that eolian formations were formed by rainfalls hardening a layer and then sands blowing on top of it. This hardened layer remains fossilised as the weight of more sand pressurises it into sandstone. Then the marine environment later develops over the sandstone layers, possibly washing away the looser sand, the new sediments settling on the hardened sandstone layers.

Pressure doesn't turn sediment into rock - unless it is enough to alter molecular structure. Only cement or melting does.

#17 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:43 PM

Pressure doesn't turn sediment into rock - unless it is enough to alter molecular structure. Only cement or melting does.


Ok well I guess its the silica in the Coconino sandstone that caused the cementing that turned it into rock? So going back to my original proposal, rain hardens the silica/sand mix slightly. Then sand blows over the slightly hardened layer. It gets covered and hardens more, still retaining the wind-swept eolian patterns. Then it becomes a shallow marine environment, with those eolian elements and tracks becoming permanently fossilised.

#18 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 20 February 2012 - 10:15 PM

Ok well I guess its the silica in the Coconino sandstone that caused the cementing that turned it into rock? So going back to my original proposal, rain hardens the silica/sand mix slightly. Then sand blows over the slightly hardened layer. It gets covered and hardens more, still retaining the wind-swept eolian patterns. Then it becomes a shallow marine environment, with those eolian elements and tracks becoming permanently fossilised.

That might have been the case, but I doubt very much that rain-hardened dunes would retain their structure after being drowned. And certainly, the cement introduced at drowning needed to be fully and thoroughly mixed with the entire layer.

A good rule of thumb is that the last watery event to affect sediment is the one that is completely responsible for the rock formation we see.

#19 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 21 February 2012 - 01:39 AM

That might have been the case, but I doubt very much that rain-hardened dunes would retain their structure after being drowned. And certainly, the cement introduced at drowning needed to be fully and thoroughly mixed with the entire layer.

A good rule of thumb is that the last watery event to affect sediment is the one that is completely responsible for the rock formation we see.


Ok so lets take your water lens example, do you therefore believe that the flood deposits ended with the Coconino sandstone, and that is why tracks are found there followed by the next layer showing a shallow marine environment?

#20 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 21 February 2012 - 06:30 AM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users