Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Deposition of sand hard to take? Ask the good people of the mississippi and missouri circa 1993. Where did all their sand/ silt come from?
I also note your complete certainty of your version of events by the use of the term "perhaps":
"perhaps bordering on an inland sea". So you don`t know just like Snelling and Austin!!!!!
As for insect and rain droplet imprints: my old school a fine example of sandstone building well weathered in less than millions of years post flood.
Deposition of sand hard to take? Ask the good people of the mississippi and missouri circa 1993. Where did all their sand/ silt come from?
Sand, silt, mud everything all mixed together like a flood forms, not pure sand distributed in waves that just happen to look like wind formed dunes. I am wondering if you read the OP or any of the other posts at all.
I also note your complete certainty of your version of events by the use of the term "perhaps": "perhaps bordering on an inland sea". So you don`t know just like Snelling and Austin!!!!!
Not knowing for absolutely certain if the dunes bordered an inland sea is not the same as postulating a totally ridiculous origin for them. The evidence says that these were wind formed dunes. The idea that a mythical worldwide flood picked up 10,000 cubic miles of sand, carried it for hundreds of miles and then spread it over hundreds of thousands of square miles in formations that just happened to look like wind formed dunes while animals and insects made tracks in the sand by running up the dunes that were being formed by the 300 foot deep flood water to escape the flood that was forming the dunes they were running up to escape the flood is really really absurd. It is amazing that Snelling and Austin think that anyone is gullible enough to swallow this story and even more amazing that some YECs actually do seem to be that gullible. No creationist ever went broke by overestimating the credulity of his followers.
As for insect and rain droplet imprints: my old school a fine example of sandstone building well weathered in less than millions of years post flood.
Are you saying that insects made tracks in the sandstone of your building as it weathered?
What is actually trully amazing is insects that can leave tracts in loose sand that is being blown by the wind to form dunes, and that these tracks were not blown away as it takes millions of years for this rock to solidify.........No sand storms back then????
err, sand dunes form, insect walks on sand dune, footprints preserved by being covered with more sand, more and more sand piles on top compressing lower sand with footprints into sandstone. was it that hard?
Geology with regards to earth dating techniques just leaves me in the dirt. What really baffles me is that both sides can see so much signifigance in a sand rock footprint. People have allways speculated about fossils, for instance, Xenophanes of Colophon (579-475 BC) speculated that the earth periodically dried up after returning to its original muddy state. That makes about as much sense to me as anything the Creationists and Evolutionary geologists are saying about this curious little rock.
Sorry for the off-topic remark but it was an interesting article, not very helpfull, but I may well be beyond help. I don't think the rocks are saying that much, they are after all, just rocks.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
What is actually trully amazing is insects that can leave tracts in loose sand that is being blown by the wind to form dunes, and that these tracks were not blown away as it takes millions of years for this rock to solidify.........No sand storms back then????
The formation and preservation of the insect tracks are explained on the web page with track pictures
Octopodichnus) Spider Trackway - One of the better trackway slabs found by us up near Ashfork. Such small animals can ONLY leave their trackways on completely dry sand. This represents an inter-dunal sand flat that was wetted by a morning dew after the animal passed to solidify the surface of the sand and preserve the layer before the next sand storm buried it. Ashfork area.
You will note that it says that the animals can ONLY leave trackways on completely dry sand. And yet according Austin Grand Canyon sediments from the Tapeats Sandstones on up including the
Tapeats Sandstone,
Bright Angel Shale,
Muav Limestone,
Grand Wash Dolomites,
Temple Butte Limestone,
Redwall Limestone,
Surprise Canyon Formation,
Supai Group of four formations (Esplanade, Wescogame, Manakacha, and Watahomigie), and
the Hermit Shale Formation
which are found below the Coconinos were supposedly deposited by flood before this sand that was brought in by 300 foot deep water, but was dry enough that insects could leave tracks, was deposited.
How were there vertebrate animals around to make the animals tracks after all those layers were deposited? I have seen some YECs claim that the animals were on "high ground" and came down to be there to make tracks by running up the dunes to escape the flood that was depositing completely dry sand to form the dunes they were running up. The problem is that everything in the area was supposedly deposited by the flood so there could have been no high ground to have been on while the thousands of feet of supposedly flood deposited sediments were being deposited. Seismic surveys show that the Hermit/Coconino Contact is basically flat and that there are no non sedimentary rocks anywhere in the area that animals could have been living on while the flood was depositing thousands of feet of sediments in what Austin claims was a shallow sea.
The Snelling/Austin web page on AiG is a clear example of the absurd lengths that "flood geologists" must go to when they try to twist science to fit an ancient myth.
"worm burrows"
I thought worms needed damp places to inhabit,with lots of rotting vegetation seeping into the ground, certain worms of the marine variety need water to survive. so in such an arid and desert place how did they do this?why did their worm burrows not collapse in such dry sand dunes
Quoting:
"worm burrows"
I thought worms needed damp places to inhabit,with lots of rotting vegetation seeping into the ground, certain worms of the marine variety need water to survive. so in such an arid and desert place how did they do this?why did their worm burrows not collapse in such dry sand dunes
well tree bark = tree = something for the worm to eat, right? and the burrow does collapse, but it leaves a disturbance in the ground that is preserved and can be seen
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Ok so we are now going from desert sand dunes creating this formation with no water to worms ,dampness and tree bark, trees that can grow with just "dew". worms that can survive in just a few centimetres of dry sand with just "dew".
Linear Mode
