The dry flood

Ataradrac · #41 11th February 2004, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Sheseala

Well, I also noticed dolomite sandwiching or on top of the marls. Dolomite forms from chemical precipitation and marl is lithified clay. Kind of goes against particle sorting, no?

Been awhile since I took a geology class, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

No, that's correct. Dolomite is formed in deep still water by anoxic carbonates, and the shale would form in low-energy environments. This suggests influxes of particles (via a storm?), followed by long periods of stillness.

But anyway - having a degree in geology (*duck, run, hide*) I've heard the back and forth "They are flood sediments!" "Are not!" "Are too!" "Are not!" ad naseum so many times, it's actually a bit boring.

A lot has been written on both sides of the debate, both discrediting the other side's evidence.

My question has always been: Where is the evidence of the mass die-off of marine creatures during the flood? I've never seen this explained to any degree by the creationist literature. If the flood waters were freshwater, then there would have been a massive die-off of marine creatures, who could not survive that sort of shift from sea water to brackish or fresh-like water. (Toss a dolphin in a tank of fresh water and see how long he'll live.) Or, let's say that the flood water was salt water. Freshwater fish would not have been able to survive that, as any aquarium fan will tell you.

If you point me at some websites with a good explanation, that would be helpful. ^.^

JGMEERT · #42 11th February 2004, 10:59 PM

JM: Don't feel bad about your inability to provide details of your model. Far more educated creationists than yourself have been unable to do so.

Cheers

Joe Meert

notto · #43 11th February 2004, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by DURANG0

That's because creation science is science and not religion like evolution is.

Is geology also a religion? This thread hasn't mentioned much about biology or evolution.

Pete Harcoff · #44 11th February 2004, 11:14 PM

I love this... shenzhou posts a falsification of flood geology, then Durango promptly throws out red herrings, all while ignoring the OP. Classic creationist comedy... reminds me of why I don't post here much.

Pete Harcoff · #45 11th February 2004, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by notto

Is geology also a religion? This thread hasn't mentioned much about biology or evolution.

Silly notto. Of course geology is a religion. It's part of that evilutionist conspiracy, ain't it? Not to mention astro-physics and chemistry, too. Remind me to send you an evilutionist brochure.

ObbiQuiet · #46 11th February 2004, 11:19 PM

This guy is funny, in a "wish it wasn't so" way.

notto · #47 11th February 2004, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

Silly notto. Of course geology is a religion. It's part of that evilutionist conspiracy, ain't it? Not to mention astro-physics and chemistry, too. Remind me to send you an evilutionist brochure.

But I accept ALL mainstream sciences. Do I give my tithes to Darwin, Gallileo, or Currie?

Hydra009 · #48 12th February 2004, 12:29 AM

Send those checks to Einstein.

*puts cash money on table*
You see how the table bows because of the weight of the bling bling? That's how gravity works - stars and planets bend space.

Frumious Bandersnatch · #49 12th February 2004, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by DURANG0

You need to realize that the flood covered an area, then like the tide receded, exposing the land for a short duration allowing animals as you mentioned above to walk on the surface. As the flood continued the waters reoccupied the area, finally covering the track allowing them to be captured in the soon to be rock.

Near the top of the sediment laid down by the flood waters in the early stages we find the Coconino Sandstones. The area of the sandstone exceeds 100,000 square miles and it’s volume is conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles. It is believed that the the material for this layer came from the north being transported a great distance. No local source area is known. Many uniformatarians believe that the Coconino formation was made by sand that was moved by the winds from the north. The creationist have a different opinion. The slope angels of the sandwaves indicate that the sand was deposited in water rather than blown in place by wind. There is also a feature known as parting lineation which is formed on sand surfaces in flowing water and is not present in desert dunes. Studies have also shown that the size of the sand represents sand waves and not those of current desert sand dunes.
The sand in the Toroweap formation was deposited from sand eroded from the Coconino sandstone which suggest that there was substantial water currents and not a sluggish sea. It should also be interesting to note that the abrupt and flat contact of the Toroweap with the Coconino and in places an intertounging relationship between the two indicate that no long period of time separates the two. This is what the flood model would suggest.

ref:
Grand Canyon
Monument to Catastrophe
Edited by Steve A. Austin

The Coconino Sandstones were not deposited by a mythical worldwide flood.
You have already been given a link to my thread on the subject.
http://www.christianforums.com/t50735

The quote below comes from Creation Science and Earth History
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm
The subaqeous sand-wave theory promoted by Austin (1994) is rendered dubious on other sedimentologic grounds as well, which overwhelmingly support the eolian interpretation. For instance, whereas the angles of cross-beds in subarial dunes frequently exceed 25-30 degrees, sand waves possess very low angle cross-beds, deviating from the horizontal by about 1-10 degrees. One of Austin's own sources, Allen, writes:

"We cannot emphasize too strongly that sand waves possess low to mild slopes ... it is clear that the sides of the waves rarely dip more steeply than 10 degress overall and can slope as little as 1 degree ..."

The bedforms are also inconsistent with subaqeous deposition. Middleton et al. (p. 195) write:

The low height-to-wavelength ratio of the wind ripples as measured in plan view exposures of many foresets is consistent with those recorded from modern coastal and inland dunes.

So it turns out that the slope angles actually argue against water deposition rather than for it as Austin claims.

Here is a page writen by a creationist which explains in detail why it is absurd to claim that the Coconino Sandstones are flood deposits.

http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/coconino.htm

I'll bump the thread so that people who might not have seen it yet can see just how totally absurd YEC "geology" can be.

It should be pointed out that what Austin has claimed is not really the flood model that Joe is asking for. He is restricting it to one small part of the earth and still he must come up with absurd ad hoc nonsense to try to fit it to the global flood myth.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

LorentzHA · #50 12th February 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by armed2010

.................................please be joking?

Typical YEC behavior for Durango. They scream for data and information, then when it is presented they refuse to even look at it. I presented OVER 10 links and a couple from a former YEC, who happens to be a geologist. He would not look at a one and then simply just dimisses them as, "spam". Then he asks for more info, others answer him and still he refuses to listen. The only thing they will listen to is if a board full of people say, "Yes the Earth is young" and "yes, there was a global flood." They then typically post something like this------>

, thinking that settles it-that they have won the debate, via false pride and another person who is equally as uneducated, repeating their own position.

Otherwise, they simply ignore the years of research by actual, legitimate scientists. Durango is no different from any other creationist.

I honestly believe that he only gave the opening post a cursory glance and thought it was backing his position! When I said, it did not he went into combat mode, thinking there was going to be a board full of people shouting the praises of a young earth and a global flood because it "said so in the article"

It was pretty obvious he did not read it because he kept asking me why Shenzhou's article refuted a global flood. I was sitting here reading that last night laughing, since the main point was in the FIRST paragraph.

That is another thing I have noticed about YEC's, they have bad scholarship and are academically lazy. The only links they will even look at are there own. And read? Forget it!