Questions about/problems with YEC

[Robert the Pilegrim]

A single huge, violent flood eroded it's way through all these layers to form the Grand Canyon. The Colorado River is just the remaining drainage for the canyon.

The Grand Canyon has sheer walls, sharp angles, flat surfaces at right angles to the flow of the river...

i.e. it was not carved in a short period.

 

[RightWingGirl]

And your opinion is still not evidence, no matter how many times you repeat it. Please bear in mind that I am speaking about evidence. Evidence of two kinds.

1. Evidence of a global flood that should be there if such a flood occurred, but has never been found.

What kind evidence would you expect?

Have you any idea of how many different types of rock there are? Do you know that each requires a different environmental condition for its formation? How could all these different environmental conditions exist during a flood?

Do you know under what conditions shale will form? limestone? quartz? chalk? Please explain how each of these could be formed numerous times in many different locations, interspersed with each other, during a year-long flood.

Limestone,

Quartz is often formed often along with other stones, such as Pumice, Rhyolite, and Granite; These are formed when molten rock is cooled, or solidifies. During the floos we would see many volcanic eruptions.

Shale is fromed from previously existing rocks that were eroded, and redeposited elsewhere, which would happen during the flood.
And chalk

Buried quickly, fossilized slowly, and the sediments in which they were buried lithified slowly. This sort of thing can occur without a global flood. Nothing indicates that all such organisms died and were buried within the same short time frame. In fact, the evidence indicates that they were not.

What evidence do you think indicates they were not?

Quick burial does not imply quick fossilization. Quick and complete burial can preserve a soft body from decay so that fossilization can take place.

What would provide quick and complete burial in a calm, shallow sea?

Obviously most footprints do not last long. But a footprint in mud will last several days, even months under the right conditions. Some very dry conditions are also suitable for preserving footprints by having the print buried in light dust that does not disturb the outlines of the print.

THe problem I see with that is that you cannot prove that all of the footprints were made in mud. If they were not, than I should think the light dust would have to be propelled by some source that would put it into the imprint; likely wind. This same wind would obliterate the footprints. I read something interesting a while back. It was the fossil of a crab, with a small trail of it's footprints leading to it. Obviously the crab was buried quickly--it was not decayed at all. This means that the footprints were also covered quickly.

I need to go now, But I'll reply to the rest later.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

excuse me, but if the flood was worldwide then water could NOT move from one place to another as you propose. all it can do is rise up uniformly. the volume of water through the canyon can not exceed the volume falling in the catchment basin nor can it exceed the sink capacity, which itself is filling up at the same rate as the catchment basin. to get a canyon requires either a long time or burst a very large reservoir. all of the flood geology i've read says that the surface of the earth was rather uniform, with mountains etc pushed up during the flood or soon there after. this they do to minimize the sheer amount of water required to put the tallest mountain underwater.

but in either case, to create canyons via a castastrophic event requires a reservoir not a global flood.

look at it as a source flowing through the canyon to a sink.
in a global flood the sink and source fill up at roughly the same rate. there is no where for the water to go but up.
no, a global flood can not create canyons like the GC, nor is there any evidence of massive floods doing it, but rather lots of evidence for just what you see, a small river working over a very long time.
...

The flood 'inwashed' from the sea and rose at a rate of almost two inches per minute, until it crested above the tallest mountain (Mt. Everest?). This is an incredibly powerful flood. The outwash was apparently at the same rate. Fast moving outwash is very destructive particularly over level surfaces because of it's increased speed.

The Grand Canyon is 7-8000 feet above sea level. That means that there was approximately 22,000 feet of water over the plateau.

That much fast moving water can make a whole bunch of Grand Canyons, as well as Mississippi River drainages.

Consider too that the ark was swept northward for 800-1000 miles in just a few weeks time. That is powerful and fast moving water. That means that the the water came in from the Persian Gulf and swept up the Mesopotamian plain, futher evidence that the oceans provided the massive amount of flood water.

This was probably caused by a tremendous uplifting of the sea floor, causing sea water to inundate the earth. Massive evaporation salt deposits all over the earth also attest to this.

 

[gluadys]

What kind evidence would you expect?

That has already been suggested. There would need to be a single band of flood-type deposits found all around the world, not interrupted by formations that are incompatible with flood conditions.

I find it interesting that you asked only about evidence that is missing. Are you not curious at all about the second type of evidence?


"2. Evidence which has been found that could not exist if a global flood had occurred."

Limestone,

Quartz is often formed often along with other stones, such as Pumice, Rhyolite, and Granite; These are formed when molten rock is cooled, or solidifies. During the floos we would see many volcanic eruptions.

Shale is fromed from previously existing rocks that were eroded, and redeposited elsewhere, which would happen during the flood.
And chalk

The basic reason I mentioned different types of rock is that they require different environments in which to form. But a global flood basically offers one type of environment. So how can you get rocks as different as quartz and shale from the same flood?

Also, each of these, as well as many I did not name, provide difficulties for a global flood theory.

Consider shale. You may have done one of those experiments where you put gravels and sands of different diameters in a jar, fill it with water, seal it, shake it vigourously, and then let the sediments settle to the bottom. If you have, you know that the larger, heavier particles settle earliest and lowest, with smaller, lighter particles settling last and highest.

You will also know that the large, heavy particles settle almost immediately, but the lighter particles take much longer to settle. The very lightest will remain in the water column for hours making it cloudy.

It is these very light particles that shale is formed from. In order for shale to form at all, the water in which it is forming must be very still for a long time to allow these particles to settle as sediment.

Chalk is also made from similarly very fine particles of calcium carbonate. A chalk particle, 2 microns in radius, takes about 80 days to fall through only 300 feet of very still water. So AiG's coccolith blooms are not a sufficient answer. Even if they occurred, that only supplies a source for the chalk particles. But before you get chalk formation, the foraminifera and coccoliths have to complete their life-cycle and die, and their skeletal material be broken down into chalk particles and the particles themselves would have to sink to the ocean bottom. And only then under the intense weight and pressure of water and more sediment could it begin to lithify. And all this time, the water has to be extremely still. Any turbulence would simply pick up the chalk particles and whirl them into the ocean currents to begin their long slow descent to the bottom again somewhere else.

The big problem with both limestone and quartz is heat.

Consider the Ordovician limestone formations in North Dakota.

These can not be the flood deposits for a reason of heat. Each gram of carbonate gives off about 1207 kilocalories per mole (Whittier et al, 1992, p. 576). Since the density of the carbonate is around 2.5 g/cc this means that there are 2.2 x 106 moles of carbonate deposited over each meter. Multiply this by 1,207,000 joules per mole and divide by the solar constant and you find that to deposit these beds in one year requires that the energy emitted by each meter squared would be 278 times that received by the sun. Such energies would fry everybody and everything.​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

You attribute quartz to volcanoes. But what is the basis for claiming "many volcanic eruptions" during the flood? Scripture mentions no volcanoes. Nor can I think of any reason why a global flood would trigger volcanoes.

What are volcanoes needed for?

And how many volcanoes would there be? Would they occur under water or above water? Would they occur at the beginning of the flood only or throughout the whole year?

What evidence would you expect to remain as a consequence of these volcanoes today? Has this evidence been found?

How can the existence of many volcanoes be reconciled with the extremely still waters needed for shale and chalk formation?

How can the existence of many volcanoes be reconciled with the survival of life? Volcanoes generate heat. Many volcanoes generate a lot of heat. I've seen estimates of the catastrophic type flood that included many volcanoes and continental breakup and that sort of thing raising the atmospheric temperature into the thousands of degrees (both Centigrade and Fahrenheit). Under such temperatures, you wouldn't have a flood for very long, because the oceans would boil off into steam. Of course, you wouldn't have life very long either. Not even in the Ark.

And we haven't even begun to talk about rocks that cannot form in water, rocks that show paleosoils, or rocks, including shales that show burrows and other trace fossils that are all incompatible with a global flood.

What evidence do you think indicates they were not?

In many places marine environments are intersperced with terrestrial environments, like a club sandwich of several layers. The terrestrial environments show an established ecology with vegetation growing. Fossils are found in both the marine and terrestrial environments. Different fossils, suited to the environment. You can't have all of these burials occurring at the same time, because you can't have the area being water-covered and dry land at the same time.

What would provide quick and complete burial in a calm, shallow sea?

Depends on the size of the organism you are speaking about. For smaller organisms the natural bio-turbidity of larger organisms feeding on the bottom would kick up enough mud to envelope them while most of the water remained calm. You would also get relatively rapid sedimentation at the mouths of rivers and creeks emptying into the sea. And now and again you could get an underwater landslide.

THe problem I see with that is that you cannot prove that all of the footprints were made in mud.

I never suggested they were. That was just an example of a kind of print that can last for quite awhile.

If they were not, than I should think the light dust would have to be propelled by some source that would put it into the imprint; likely wind.

Not necessarily. You can have a lot of dust settling even with virtually no wind. Have you ever had the opportunity, perhaps at camp, to see beams of light shining into a darkened room or tent, or shady part of a woodland? If so, you may have noted the dust motes highlighted by the sunshine. Sooner or later they all fall to the ground, or onto the furniture, which is why you have to dust or vaccum even when a room is not being used.

I read something interesting a while back. It was the fossil of a crab, with a small trail of it's footprints leading to it. Obviously the crab was buried quickly--it was not decayed at all. This means that the footprints were also covered quickly.

Exactly. And then fossilized along with the crab. Remember burial is necessary to fossilization, but its not the same thing as fossilization. The fossilization is a slow process that occurs after the burial.

 

[Deamiter]

Haven't any of you ever seen runoff from a flood or even a strong storm? As Robert the Pilgrim said (and nobody seemed to notice), the angles in the Grand Canyon are WAY too steep to have been carved in new sediment by rushing water! It's just literally impossible to take ANY material, push water over it for a year, and end up with the Grand Canyon. The closest you could get would be a wide gulley, and that's only if there was NO solid rock (i.e. no volcanic rock, just mud). If the solid rock was in place when the water (supposedly) rushed over it, you'd get rounded channels. Either way, you'd get NOTHING like the meandering Canyon with extremely steep walls!

 

[Dannager]

Haven't any of you ever seen runoff from a flood or even a strong storm? As Robert the Pilgrim said (and nobody seemed to notice), the angles in the Grand Canyon are WAY too steep to have been carved in new sediment by rushing water! It's just literally impossible to take ANY material, push water over it for a year, and end up with the Grand Canyon. The closest you could get would be a wide gulley, and that's only if there was NO solid rock (i.e. no volcanic rock, just mud). If the solid rock was in place when the water (supposedly) rushed over it, you'd get rounded channels. Either way, you'd get NOTHING like the meandering Canyon with extremely steep walls!

Quoted and lime'd for truth.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Quoted and lime'd for truth.

easy on the eyes....that hurts at this time of morning! and I can't find my sunglasses!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Haven't any of you ever seen runoff from a flood or even a strong storm? As Robert the Pilgrim said (and nobody seemed to notice), the angles in the Grand Canyon are WAY too steep to have been carved in new sediment by rushing water! It's just literally impossible to take ANY material, push water over it for a year, and end up with the Grand Canyon. The closest you could get would be a wide gulley, and that's only if there was NO solid rock (i.e. no volcanic rock, just mud). If the solid rock was in place when the water (supposedly) rushed over it, you'd get rounded channels. Either way, you'd get NOTHING like the meandering Canyon with extremely steep walls!

The 'rock' formations in the GC are very soft and very susceptable to erosion. (This from geology reports that I just perused). Also, the pattern of angles is not untypical of flood erosion. Also there has been 4-5000 years of further erosion since the flood. Did you think the original flood 'evidence' would remain intact?

The flood was the last major geological event there, so the evidence, unburied on the surface of the land, would be most vulnerable to change, and obliteration.

The 'worldwide layer' of flood evidence is a 'straw man' arguement erected by geologists. As noted before, a flood of the magnitude of Noah's would wash away more evidence than it leaves. And there certainly would not be anything 'uniform' remaining.

Consider the Grand Canyon itself, the HOLE in the ground. There is no evidence in the hole, as it is a hole. THAT is the flood evidence. All the other geological formations around the hole are evidence of PAST geological activity, laid down by much gentler flooding.

Also the CG is small potatoes where erosion is concerned. Explain the sedimentary buttes that rise above our western desests. That is all that remains of thousands of square miles of such sedimentary plateaus, and no river in sight. Nope, the wind didn't blow it all away. Yup, the flood did that.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The 'rock' formations in the GC are very soft and very susceptable to erosion. (This from geology reports that I just perused). Also, the pattern of angles is not untypical of flood erosion. Also there has been 4-5000 years of further erosion since the flood. Did you think the original flood 'evidence' would remain intact?

Creationists seem to think so

The flood was the last major geological event there, so the evidence, unburied on the surface of the land, would be most vulnerable to change, and obliteration.

So if the Flood evidence was obliterated, then what are YEC ministries hanging their hat on?

The 'worldwide layer' of flood evidence is a 'straw man' arguement erected by geologists. As noted before, a flood of the magnitude of Noah's would wash away more evidence than it leaves. And there certainly would not be anything 'uniform' remaining.

So we know something happened because there's no trace of it... well, that's a new one.

Consider the Grand Canyon itself, the HOLE in the ground. There is no evidence in the hole, as it is a hole. THAT is the flood evidence. All the other geological formations around the hole are evidence of PAST geological activity, laid down by much gentler flooding.

There's nothing there, so the flood did it?

Also the CG is small potatoes where erosion is concerned. Explain the sedimentary buttes that rise above our western desests. That is all that remains of thousands of square miles of such sedimentary plateaus, and no river in sight. Nope, the wind didn't blow it all away. Yup, the flood did that.

You have a hypothesis... time to find evidence.

Or did the Flood wash it all away?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The 'rock' formations in the GC are very soft and very susceptable to erosion.

Bearing in mind that "very soft" is a relative term, yes, some of the rock (no scare quotes necessary) formations are, others are very hard. You don't get 1000 foot sheer cliffs from soft rock.

The Temple Butte simply wouldn't be there, much less with enough bulk to maintain a flat front, if the GC were a flood feature.

More to the point, the overall steepness that remains after an alleged 4000+ years of additional erosion is way too great to be produced by a flood.

The Canyon would have collapsed in on itself had it been soft enough to be carved away in a single flood.

We know what a really big flood looks like, we have the scablands.

Explain the sedimentary buttes that rise above our western desests. That is all that remains of thousands of square miles of such sedimentary plateaus, and no river in sight. Nope, the wind didn't blow it all away. Yup, the flood did that.

I'm curious how much geology education and experience, field and lab, you have?

Have you bothered to look at the views of geologists about those plateaus? Have you read up on the supporting evidence?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Bearing in mind that "very soft" is a relative term, yes, some of the rock (no scare quotes necessary) formations are, others are very hard. You don't get 1000 foot sheer cliffs from soft rock.

The Temple Butte simply wouldn't be there, much less with enough bulk to maintain a flat front, if the GC were a flood feature.

More to the point, the overall steepness that remains after an alleged 4000+ years of additional erosion is way too great to be produced by a flood.

The Canyon would have collapsed in on itself had it been soft enough to be carved away in a single flood.

We know what a really big flood looks like, we have the scablands.

I'm curious how much geology education and experience, field and lab, you have?

Have you bothered to look at the views of geologists about those plateaus? Have you read up on the supporting evidence?

No need. I've been there and seen the buttes. No question, Noah's flood! (Or another honkin' big one.)

And if I found a geology survey that agrees with me?????

As I said earlier, I don't think the flood was totally responsible for the CG, but certainly got it off to a good start.

Flooding can not only create vertical walls, but can actually undercut those walls, forming overhanging edges.

I have read geology surveys (very tedious) and have noted with interest the great detail in their findings, until it comes to flooding of any kind. Then the narrative becomes vague, with little detail of the strength, volume, duration, etc. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[gluadys]

The 'worldwide layer' of flood evidence is a 'straw man' arguement erected by geologists. As noted before, a flood of the magnitude of Noah's would wash away more evidence than it leaves. And there certainly would not be anything 'uniform' remaining.

Wash it where? to Pluto?

The flood would have to lift, move and redeposit sediment. It can't wash away more evidence than it leaves. It can only take sediments from one place and put them someplace else. And it is going to leave as many sediments as it picked up in the first place. Both the eroded areas and the depositional areas would need to be consistent with flood conditions, and show the same relative stratigraphy.

 

[KerrMetric]

The 'rock' formations in the GC are very soft and very susceptable to erosion.

Many of them are not. Have you seen Vishnu schist?

The 'worldwide layer' of flood evidence is a 'straw man' arguement erected by geologists.

Just because you have learned a new term (strawman) from hanging around the internet doesn't mean it belongs where and when you choose. You are using it inappropriately here.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Bearing in mind that "very soft" is a relative term, yes, some of the rock (no scare quotes necessary) formations are, others are very hard. You don't get 1000 foot sheer cliffs from soft rock.

The Temple Butte simply wouldn't be there, much less with enough bulk to maintain a flat front, if the GC were a flood feature.

More to the point, the overall steepness that remains after an alleged 4000+ years of additional erosion is way too great to be produced by a flood.

The Canyon would have collapsed in on itself had it been soft enough to be carved away in a single flood.

We know what a really big flood looks like, we have the scablands.

I'm curious how much geology education and experience, field and lab, you have?

Have you bothered to look at the views of geologists about those plateaus? Have you read up on the supporting evidence?

No need.

No need for what?
To read up on what people who have actually put some years into studying how rock and soil and wind and water interact think?

I've been there and seen the buttes. No question, Noah's flood! (Or another honkin' big one.)

and you base this on what evidence?
And you base your analysis upon what studies?

And if I found a geology survey that agrees with me?????

I take it you haven't read any analyses of the origins of the buttes?

To answer your question, first I would ask what sort of peer view it had been submitted to, then I would ask the same questions I am asking here, what examples of flooding are they using, what is the evidence that fits their hypothesis better than the standard hypotheses...

As I said earlier, I don't think the flood was totally responsible for the CG, but certainly got it off to a good start.

Again, based on what?
What examples of flooding are you using for comparison?
What measurements of what properties of what types of rock are you using to come to this conclusion?

Flooding can not only create vertical walls,

In a short period of time flooding can only create short vertical walls out of soft materials.

but can actually undercut those walls, forming overhanging edges.

And the relevence of this is?
In point of fact I've seen quite a few sheer walls in the Grand Canyon, and none of them were undercut, or even close to being undercut.

I have read geology surveys (very tedious) and have noted with interest the great detail in their findings, until it comes to flooding of any kind. Then the narrative becomes vague, with little detail of the strength, volume, duration, etc. Why do you suppose that is?

Maybe you are reading the wrong surveys?
Or maybe estimating flow etc is very difficult beyond order of magnitude.


The following may provide some clues...
http://www4.nau.edu/geology/namdor/sbar.html
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~weltyc/nps.html
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~weltyc/Sediment_Lit_Review.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~arrows/geomorph/glg362--secondlecture.htm
http://www.public.asu.edu/~arrows/geomorph/GLG362--weathering.html

 

[RightWingGirl]

Haven't any of you ever seen runoff from a flood or even a strong storm? As Robert the Pilgrim said (and nobody seemed to notice), the angles in the Grand Canyon are WAY too steep to have been carved in new sediment by rushing water! It's just literally impossible to take ANY material, push water over it for a year, and end up with the Grand Canyon. The closest you could get would be a wide gulley, and that's only if there was NO solid rock (i.e. no volcanic rock, just mud). If the solid rock was in place when the water (supposedly) rushed over it, you'd get rounded channels. Either way, you'd get NOTHING like the meandering Canyon with extremely steep walls!

THis is a small canyon that was formed by Mt. St. Helens in a very short amount of time. Almost effect is given as the Grand canyon, and yet this was not formed in millions of years.

Now the objections are as follows;

The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

At the time the Grand canyon was formed the rocks were newly formed, and would not present quite the same problem as they might now. Also the Toutle River canyon is almost 100,000 times smaller. We are talking about much larger forces of water then were used there, in fact greater amount than any living human has ever seen.

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

True, but I am not saying that the Toutle river is an exact replica, only that such a thing is possible, and we have seen it happen on a much smaller scale.

The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation. Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

No, but it was also not formed in millions of years.

The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

The two are not perfectly similar, and we would not expect them to be.

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

The two are as comparable as a model is of it's greater original. If it were not for the fact that we know how long it took to form, than it would probably be estimated to have taken at least a few hundered years.

 

[Willtor]

THis is a small canyon that was formed by Mt. St. Helens in a very short amount of time. Almost effect is given as the Grand canyon, and yet this was not formed in millions of years.

Yeah, but nobody is arguing that Mount St. Helens was a flood. If I recall, it's a caldera.

If I say I can lift a car with my bare hands and you don't believe me, it doesn't help my case to use a forklift and say it's basically the same thing.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

True, but I am not saying that the Toutle river is an exact replica, only that such a thing is possible, and we have seen it happen on a much smaller scale. []

No, you haven't seen it happen.

You've seen what looks the same to somebody who hasn't a clue about geology and erosion.

There are some things that just don't scale.

Watch the first Superman movie, the scene where the flood goes through the valley (or in any of a number of similar scenes in movies).

If you are looking critically it looks fake, why? Because it scaled down, and water behaves differently on a small scale, different waves form etc.

I can produce a sheer wall of a few inches by eroding sand. But to produce a sheer wall of a 1000 feet requires a much hard material, which requires a much longer period of time to erode.

We know what massive erosion looks like, and it ain't the Grand Canyon.

 

[RightWingGirl]

That has already been suggested. There would need to be a single band of flood-type deposits found all around the world, not interrupted by formations that are incompatible with flood conditions.

There is a single band, comprised of many layers--it is usually known as the "geological column."

I find it interesting that you asked only about evidence that is missing. Are you not curious at all about the second type of evidence?


"2. Evidence which has been found that could not exist if a global flood had occurred."

I has not answered this yet becuase I doubt that we could ever agree on something like this. It is impossible for science to prove anything, and no man living has seen the global flood. I could not then prove that it was made by a world-wide flood, and any evidence I show can be taken by you as evidence of a local flood, even if it is a very large one. Science cannot faithfully speak of the past, only the present, as the scientific theory deals only with those things which are reconstructable, and testable.

The basic reason I mentioned different types of rock is that they require different environments in which to form. But a global flood basically offers one type of environment. So how can you get rocks as different as quartz and shale from the same flood?

A global flood would make more than one environment, although not in the same place at the same time. If, as is thought, the continents split during this time we would not only have water, but mud flows, earthquakes, volcanoes, Tsunamis on giant scales, and hurricanes.

Consider shale. You may have done one of those experiments where you put gravels and sands of different diameters in a jar, fill it with water, seal it, shake it vigourously, and then let the sediments settle to the bottom. If you have, you know that the larger, heavier particles settle earliest and lowest, with smaller, lighter particles settling last and highest.

You will also know that the large, heavy particles settle almost immediately, but the lighter particles take much longer to settle. The very lightest will remain in the water column for hours making it cloudy.

It is these very light particles that shale is formed from. In order for shale to form at all, the water in which it is forming must be very still for a long time to allow these particles to settle as sediment.

You must be thinking of a diffent kind of stone.
Shale is initially deposited as clay, from either fresh or salt water. Clay consists of very small mineral grains that are platelike in shape or form, in other words, they are generally flat and thin, kind of like a dinner plate or sheet of paper. When they are first deposited, they lay at all angles from horizontal to vertical (standing on edge). Then as more sediment is deposited on top of the clay layer or bed, the water between the clay particles begins to be squeezed out and the clay minerals begin to all lay flat or horizontal. As this happens over a period of time, the resulting rock - shale - develops the property of fissility.
A website which shows the process of Shale forming shows it's formation in the ocean, near the beach. The ocean water near the beach does not stay still for long periods of time. Found here.

Chalk is also made from similarly very fine particles of calcium carbonate. A chalk particle, 2 microns in radius, takes about 80 days to fall through only 300 feet of very still water. So AiG's coccolith blooms are not a sufficient answer. Even if they occurred, that only supplies a source for the chalk particles. But before you get chalk formation, the foraminifera and coccoliths have to complete their life-cycle and die, and their skeletal material be broken down into chalk particles and the particles themselves would have to sink to the ocean bottom. And only then under the intense weight and pressure of water and more sediment could it begin to lithify. And all this time, the water has to be extremely still. Any turbulence would simply pick up the chalk particles and whirl them into the ocean currents to begin their long slow descent to the bottom again somewhere else.

Under "normal" evolutionary conditons, what provides the intense weight and pressure of water and more sediment to allow it to lithify.?

The big problem with both limestone and quartz is heat.

Consider the Ordovician limestone formations in North Dakota.

These can not be the flood deposits for a reason of heat. Each gram of carbonate gives off about 1207 kilocalories per mole (Whittier et al, 1992, p. 576). Since the density of the carbonate is around 2.5 g/cc this means that there are 2.2 x 106 moles of carbonate deposited over each meter. Multiply this by 1,207,000 joules per mole and divide by the solar constant and you find that to deposit these beds in one year requires that the energy emitted by each meter squared would be 278 times that received by the sun. Such energies would fry everybody and everything.​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

I do not know much about limestone, I'll have to research the matter and get back to you.

You attribute quartz to volcanoes. But what is the basis for claiming "many volcanic eruptions" during the flood? Scripture mentions no volcanoes. Nor can I think of any reason why a global flood would trigger volcanoes.

As I said before, the continents spliting in the space of a year would make many, many volcanoes.

What are volcanoes needed for?

And how many volcanoes would there be? Would they occur under water or above water? Would they occur at the beginning of the flood only or throughout the whole year?

No human living has seen the flood. How would you tell? however they would probably occur throughout the flood, but primarily at the beginning.

What evidence would you expect to remain as a consequence of these volcanoes today? Has this evidence been found?

Rocks formed by lava, quanities of ash, etc.

How can the existence of many volcanoes be reconciled with the survival of life? Volcanoes generate heat. Many volcanoes generate a lot of heat. I've seen estimates of the catastrophic type flood that included many volcanoes and continental breakup and that sort of thing raising the atmospheric temperature into the thousands of degrees (both Centigrade and Fahrenheit). Under such temperatures, you wouldn't have a flood for very long, because the oceans would boil off into steam. Of course, you wouldn't have life very long either. Not even in the Ark.

Could you give me sources?

In many places marine environments are intersperced with terrestrial environments, like a club sandwich of several layers. The terrestrial environments show an established ecology with vegetation growing. Fossils are found in both the marine and terrestrial environments. Different fossils, suited to the environment. You can't have all of these burials occurring at the same time, because you can't have the area being water-covered and dry land at the same time.

Again, could I have sources?

Depends on the size of the organism you are speaking about. For smaller organisms the natural bio-turbidity of larger organisms feeding on the bottom would kick up enough mud to envelope them while most of the water remained calm. You would also get relatively rapid sedimentation at the mouths of rivers and creeks emptying into the sea. And now and again you could get an underwater landslide.

This fish was supposed to have lived in a large, still, shallow sea covering parts of modern-day U.S.A. What killed it(without leaving marks) so quickly after eating another fish, perserved it, sank it to the bottom, and finally what fossilized it?

Not necessarily. You can have a lot of dust settling even with virtually no wind. Have you ever had the opportunity, perhaps at camp, to see beams of light shining into a darkened room or tent, or shady part of a woodland? If so, you may have noted the dust motes highlighted by the sunshine. Sooner or later they all fall to the ground, or onto the furniture, which is why you have to dust or vaccum even when a room is not being used.

Do you know of any place on the earth where particles that small could slowly fill a foot print?

 

[RightWingGirl]

Yeah, but nobody is arguing that Mount St. Helens was a flood. If I recall, it's a caldera.

If I say I can lift a car with my bare hands and you don't believe me, it doesn't help my case to use a forklift and say it's basically the same thing.

That canyon was formed by water.
If you wish to know mor eabout the subject, there is an in-depth discussion of it here; http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_sa_r04

Also, as you can see, some of the walls are nearly vertical.

 

[shernren]

I has not answered this yet becuase I doubt that we could ever agree on something like this. It is impossible for science to prove anything, and no man living has seen the global flood. I could not then prove that it was made by a world-wide flood, and any evidence I show can be taken by you as evidence of a local flood, even if it is a very large one. Science cannot faithfully speak of the past, only the present, as the scientific theory deals only with those things which are reconstructable, and testable.

If it is impossible for science to prove a global flood it means there is no scientific evidence for a global flood. QED.