Scientific proof of flood.

[leccy]

Thank you for the information.

I can see now why YEC put all of the layers as a recient development.

That cannot work. There are angular unconformities between some of the layers. Those represent the passage of great periods of time, with erosion rather than deposition.

I have often wondered what would happen if you put billion year old rocks into a layer with new fossils.

You'd have a fossiliferous sandstone, or fossiliferous conglomerate or some other fossiliferous sedimentary rock. These are things which we see on a regular basis- all clastic sedimentary rocks are made from older rocks.

It would make for some interesting dates would it not?

It would make for some dates. Whether they are interesting depends on what they are. Be aware that relative dating, using fossil evidence is very well established and very well understood. The intercalation of volcanic deposits within sequences of sedimentary rocks gives the opportunity for radiometric dates to be used to calibrate these time scales.

I was not able to identify the arid layers you refered to.

They all seem to have water fossil or water evidence of some kind.

Can you point out the arid layers?

Duane

From the above link

Coconino Sandstone - This layer averages about 260 million years old and is composed of pure quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified. The color of this layer ranges from white to cream colored. No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist.

The Coconino Sandstone is generally held to be a continental clastic deposit, formed as sand dunes in a sub-aerial environment, not underwater. The presence of tracks of land-dwelling invertebrates is most consistent with this intepretation. This has been discussed many times in this forum, which a search for Coconino will reveal previous threads discussing these rocks.

 

[WILLOWTREE/WT]

All you need to do now is submit your paper to a peer-reviewed geology journal and wait for the Nobel Committee to call.

Evidence for the Flood is excluded for consideration by Darwinists for obvious reasons.

WT

 

[Tomk80]

Evidence for the Flood is excluded for consideration by Darwinists for obvious reasons.

WT

No, it is just non-existant.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

So there was sand or wet sand from like a beach and creators walked on it and it then became fossilized. how did it become fossilized. if it was sand wind would erode it quite fast. was there some kind of sudden dryout. if it was a desert sand dune tracks would never be left on them because of wind. Personly i have a hard time seeing how they got there oone way or the other. Long ages they would erode away a fast water flood i think they would wash away. A question. Where did all the material come from to make these layers of strata.

 

[leccy]

So there was sand or wet sand from like a beach and creators walked on it and it then became fossilized. how did it become fossilized. if it was sand wind would erode it quite fast. was there some kind of sudden dryout. if it was a desert sand dune tracks would never be left on them because of wind. Personly i have a hard time seeing how they got there oone way or the other. Long ages they would erode away a fast water flood i think they would wash away. A question. Where did all the material come from to make these layers of strata.

Firstly the material to deposit those strata (or any clastic rock) came from the erosion of pre-existing rocks. That's what sandstone is, the detritus from pre-existing rocks, mostly made up of the stable components of weathering, specifically quartz, feldspar, mica and rock fragments together with variable amounts of clay, bound by other minerals which form the cement that holds the sand together.

With regards to the preservation of surface tracks, these merely require that the surface bearing the tracks is buried by successive layers of sediment rather than being eroded away. In many case the sand in which the traces have been made will be eroded away and those traces will not be preserved.

The transport of sand grains by wind up the stoss side of a dune (that's the more gently dipping side in the direction which the wind is comiong from) and their avalanching down the steeper dune face produces the characteristic cross-bedded appearance of the dune sediments. The downwind face of the dune is the site of sediment accumulation in layers, with younger layers burying the existing layers on a mm scale. Deposition of the face of a sub-aerial sand dune is by a combination of grain fall mechanisms and grain flow mechanisms, where failure of the dune face and gravitational sliding of the mobile grains is important. Wind ripples may be superimposed on the face of a dune (or aeolian sand flat) and produce distinctive upwards-coarsening laminae which are characterisitic of aeolian environments.

Under other circumstances animal tracks in damp mud or damp sand may be preserved by being buried by sand or clay deposited on top of them from water attributed to occasional rainfall. Aeolian deposits may be interspersed with water-borne deposits indicative of flash floods associated with that rainfall, in wadis, sand flats and ephemeral lakes. These are all environments that we can study in modern deserts.

So in simple terms animal tracks may be buried by sand grains being deposited on top of them. The tracks in the Coconino Sandstones apparently include reptile tracks and other tracks attributed to spiders and insects, which are held to be characteristic of being formed on land, rather than underwater. Talk Origins deals with the specific claims that these tracks may be formed underwater. If you are genuinely interested to read what they have to say about it here is a link.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365.html

here is another link showing the depositional processes which occur in aeolian (wind-deposited) sediments

http://www2.umt.edu/Geology/faculty/hendrix/g432/g432_L11.htm

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

So erosion makes new rocks and it builds up and not breaks it down. I dont get it i think. so are you saying that the one mile high cliff wall of the grand canyon is all from erosion of what was below it. I thought the layers were formed from dead material like animals and vegitation or such. Or is it erosion from some rocks uyp above the canyon being miles away and drifted to this spot. I dont know maybe it is all above my understanding. Would this strata in the canyon be all over the united states or arizona. Why is there no sediment build up from erosion where the river empties out into the bay. I believe there is a awfull lot of info i would have to study to really understand it. Also why is there evidence in most all the layers of sea life or water animals. And is there fossils of dinos in the grand canyon.

 

[Tomk80]

So erosion makes new rocks and it builds up and not breaks it down. I dont get it i think. so are you saying that the one mile high cliff wall of the grand canyon is all from erosion of what was below it. I thought the layers were formed from dead material like animals and vegitation or such. Or is it erosion from some rocks uyp above the canyon being miles away and drifted to this spot. I dont know maybe it is all above my understanding. Would this strata in the canyon be all over the united states or arizona. Why is there no sediment build up from erosion where the river empties out into the bay. I believe there is a awfull lot of info i would have to study to really understand it. Also why is there evidence in most all the layers of sea life or water animals. And is there fossils of dinos in the grand canyon.

No. The footprints were originally on the bottom of an eroding stucure. For example, the footprints were made and were filled up by material from the erosion of a nearby hill. Tectonic uplift next pushed up the landmass, making it into a mountain.

 

[leccy]

[QUOTE=W Jay Schroeder]So erosion makes new rocks and it builds up and not breaks it down. I dont get it i think. [/QUOTE]


There are a lot of questions there. If you note the time that I am now going to spend in attempting to answer and explain thing I would appreciate it if you would read the explanation I am going to provide and try to understand it, rather than immediately try to refute it. Whether you accept it or not makes no real difference to me either way but I wouldn't like to have completely wasted my time by you not reading it. I'll try to keep it at a layman level as best I can.



There is a very nice site describing the geology of the Grand Canyon, which is well worth a read



http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm



but I’ll go on and try to answer your specific questions now in my own words.

So erosion makes new rocks and it builds up and not breaks it down. I dont get it i think.

Erosion is part of what we call the rock cycle.



http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/K12/rkcycle/rkcycleindex.html



In the rock cycle erosion, transport and deposition all act to cause new rocks to be created, those rocks to be worn down and transported and then deposited somewher else to form other rocks.



Brand new rocks are created by primary processes, such as from liquid magma extruded at the surface in volcanos. Depending on it's composition, the magma can erupt as lava flows, hardening into the dense igneous rock basalt or in the case of more explosive vulcanicity can be ejected violently as volcanic ash and pumice. Some magma won't make it to the surface and will slowly cool deep underground forming coarser rocks like granite or gabbro. These rocks are all primary rocks and because they are formed from fire we call them igneous rocks.



In the rock cycle when primary rocks have cooled and formed they will be subjected to the weathering action of water, thermal expansion, chemical activity as minerals that are stable in one environment begin to break down into minerals that are stable in the environment where the rock now sits. Those processes break the primary rocks down into smaller rocks, boulders, pebbles, gravel, sand and clay. Depending on the type of primary rock which is being eroded the resultant material will be composed of different minerals. If you sit on the beach at Lanzarote in the Canary Islands the sand is black, because it's made of dark mafic minerals eroded from those volcanic rocks nearby. If you sit on a beach in Cornwall the sand will be light yellow or white because if is made up of different minerals weathered from the nearby granitic rocks.



if those sand grains are transported by wind rivers and oceans they can eventually accumulate in a site of deposition. The strength of the currents that transport the grains will be an important control on the sizes of grains that can be transported and deposited. Gentle currents will only move very small grains, stronger currents will move larger grains and extreme currents (such as the storm surges associated with hurricanes or the flash floods that we see associated with very heavy rainfall in otherwise dry environments) will transport the largest grains, cobbles and boulders.



As those currents slow down then they will no longer be able to move the grains and the grains will be deposited. This is what you see when a big river meets the sea and deposits a delta- the river has dumped the sediment load it was carrying and created a cone-like pile of sediment at the river mouth where the processes of river and ocean interact. The Nile delta is nicely triangular, which is why we call them deltas, whereas the Mississippi River carries a lot of fine grained material and the influence of the river is much more obvious giving a long "birds-foot" type of delta.



Depending on the type of currents that transported this material after it has been eroded then you will end up with different types of rock at the depositional site, conglomerates have the largest grain sizes, sandstones are made up of sand-sized grains and in the areas where there is little or no current activity the very finest particles can settle out as claystone.



These sediments, if they are not eroded away themselves, can become lithified (turned into rock) by the processes of compaction (that's the weight of more and more sediment being piled on top) and cementation (that's the precipitation of minerals in the tiny spaces left between the grains by water moving through the sediment). When the sediments are hardened they become sedimentary rocks.



Rocks formed in this manner are called clastic rocks. Other types of sedimentary rocks are formed by direct precipitation from water and are termed evaporites (things like salt and gypsum fall into this category). In the case of rocks formed from the remains of the calcium carbonate skeletons of mostly invertebrates and microorganisms we call those carbonates and they include limestone and chalk.



The sedimentary rocks and igneous rocks may also be altered by the enormous pressures and high temperatures created when tectonic plates collide and these rocks are squeezed, or altered by coming into contact with magma as it works it's way through the earth's crust. These rocks may undergo growth of new minerals and be bent and buckled, may be partly melted and recrystallised and the structures that they originally had may be completely changed. This process is termed metamorphosis and the rocks that are formed are set to be metamorphic rocks.



The process of plate collision and mountain forming can force rocks which were deposited in shallow seas, or in deep oceans up into huge mountain chains- like the Himalaya that we see today. Those rocks will then be subjected to the same processes of erosion that I described at the beginning of this section, they will be broken down by rain, wind, ice, thermal expansion and contraction, they will be crushed and broken by glaciers, transported in mountain torrents and floods and will go on to form yet more rocks in the continual cycle of



erosion-transport-deposition-uplift -erosion



The eroded stumps of great mountain ranges litter the globe, testifying to this cycle having been in operation for billions of years.



And that's the rock cycle.

so are you saying that the one mile high cliff wall of the grand canyon is all from erosion of what was below it. I thought the layers were formed from dead material like animals and vegitation or such. Or is it erosion from some rocks uyp above the canyon being miles away and drifted to this spot.

You'll recall the description above about things like river currents transporting sediment- whether it's cobbles or boulders or sand. The inclusion of this material within the river makes the river a powerful abrasive agent, able to scour and erode the river bed and the river banks even where these are formed from solid rock. There are other important processes, the effect of ice mentioned earlier and the thermal expansion and contraction of rocks as the heat up during the day and cool down at night are significant in desertic environments. In addition many of the rocks in the Grand Canyon are limestones and these are eroded by a process called dissolution, where rainwater that has absorbed carbon dioxide is mildly acidic and that dissolves the calcium carbonate which makes up the limestone and carries those soluble products away in the river water in a dissolved form.



The Colorado River, which is now located at the bottom of that canyon, has cut through the predominantly sedimentary rocks over a very long period of time, removing that material and transporting it downriver towards the ocean. The rocks which it has eroded were deposited millions of years before that river ever existed. For a long period of earth’s history the place which is now occupied by the Grand Canyon has been underwater, with deposition of marine sediments containing fossils of marine creatures.



When I say "the place which is now occupied by the Grand Canyon" you have to understand that the evidence we have from paleomagnetics and other sources indicate “that place” itself has migrated and wandered around the planet quite a bit, putting it in different climatic zones and different environments. During that time the levels of the landmass and the oceans have changed many times, so that in some periods the area of the canyon was located in deep water, in other periods in shallow water and in other periods completely out of water.



These different environments produce different types of rocks and different types of fossils allowing the geoscientists to say with some confidence what was happening at that particular time. During some periods the area was uplifted and suffered erosion, so that instead of sedimentary rocks being deposited they were being eroded away and transported away from the area, to accumulate somewhere else. If you just look at the uppermost and therefore youngest layers of the rocks in the wall of the Grand Canyon we see that the Coconino Sandstone, that we talked about before, is the deposit of sand dunes in a desert environment and is overlain by the Kaiba Limestones, deposited in a warm shallow sea and containing abundant marine fossils. The present day Colorado River is much younger than both of these strata and cuts through these and all of the strata beneath, right down to what we call PreCambrian Basement rocks.

I dont know maybe it is all above my understanding.

The detail can be daunting, but the concepts are understandable by a high school student, provided that they are approached with an open mind rather than attempting to refute everything at every stage before you have developed the basic vocabulary to understanding what is happening.

Would this strata in the canyon be all over the united states or arizona.

I don’t know the answer to that off the top of my head. Certainly many of these Formations (groups of strata) extend over vast areas around the canyon but no, they don’t extend across the whole United States, different strata occur in different areas, as mapped by the US Geological Survey.

Why is there no sediment build up from erosion where the river empties out into the bay.

Many of the products of the erosion in the Canyon and the sediment transported by the Colorado River will be deposited in the floodplains in the lower reaches of the river and where it meets the ocean. These will then have been subject to oceanic processes and, in the particular location where the river meets the sea being in a tectonically active zone (where there are lots of earth movements) the location of depositional sites can change over time. These sediments may have continued to be transported along shore, down into deeper water or concentrated the sediment on the coastline, depending on the balance between the space available for the sediment to be placed into, the sea level at the time and the amount of sediment being supplied.



In the present day of course the discharge of the river is tiny in comparison , as much sediment (and water) is retained by the many dams that have been constructed.

I believe there is a awfull lot of info i would have to study to really understand it.

Yes there is, but a journey of a thousand miles must start with a single step. The information is there it only needs you to approach it with an open mind.

Also why is there evidence in most all the layers of sea life or water animals.

I think I answered this one earlier. For a long period of time the area where the Canyon is now located was indeed underwater. Changes in sea level throughout the long history of the deposition of those rocks has produced changes in the rock types that were produced. During some periods there was no deposition, only erosion.

And is there fossils of dinos in the grand canyon.

Everyone loves dinos don’t they J So far as I’m aware there aren’t fossils of dinosaurs in the rocks which make up most of the walls of the Grand Canyon because those strata are Palaeozoic, meaning that they are older than the dinosaurs.



I hope this has gone some way towards answering your questions.



Leccy

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

thanks leccy

 

[duordi]

[QUOTE=W Jay Schroeder]So erosion makes new rocks and it builds up and not breaks it down. I dont get it i think.

There are a lot of questions there. If you note the time that I am now going to spend in attempting to answer and explain thing I would appreciate it if you would read the explanation I am going to provide and try to understand it, rather than immediately try to refute it. Whether you accept it or not makes no real difference to me either way but I wouldn't like to have completely wasted my time by you not reading it. I'll try to keep it at a layman level as best I can.



There is a very nice site describing the geology of the Grand Canyon, which is well worth a read



http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm



but I’ll go on and try to answer your specific questions now in my own words.









Erosion is part of what we call the rock cycle.



http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/K12/rkcycle/rkcycleindex.html



In the rock cycle erosion, transport and deposition all act to cause new rocks to be created, those rocks to be worn down and transported and then deposited somewher else to form other rocks.



Brand new rocks are created by primary processes, such as from liquid magma extruded at the surface in volcanos. Depending on it's composition, the magma can erupt as lava flows, hardening into the dense igneous rock basalt or in the case of more explosive vulcanicity can be ejected violently as volcanic ash and pumice. Some magma won't make it to the surface and will slowly cool deep underground forming coarser rocks like granite or gabbro. These rocks are all primary rocks and because they are formed from fire we call them igneous rocks.



In the rock cycle when primary rocks have cooled and formed they will be subjected to the weathering action of water, thermal expansion, chemical activity as minerals that are stable in one environment begin to break down into minerals that are stable in the environment where the rock now sits. Those processes break the primary rocks down into smaller rocks, boulders, pebbles, gravel, sand and clay. Depending on the type of primary rock which is being eroded the resultant material will be composed of different minerals. If you sit on the beach at Lanzarote in the Canary Islands the sand is black, because it's made of dark mafic minerals eroded from those volcanic rocks nearby. If you sit on a beach in Cornwall the sand will be light yellow or white because if is made up of different minerals weathered from the nearby granitic rocks.



if those sand grains are transported by wind rivers and oceans they can eventually accumulate in a site of deposition. The strength of the currents that transport the grains will be an important control on the sizes of grains that can be transported and deposited. Gentle currents will only move very small grains, stronger currents will move larger grains and extreme currents (such as the storm surges associated with hurricanes or the flash floods that we see associated with very heavy rainfall in otherwise dry environments) will transport the largest grains, cobbles and boulders.



As those currents slow down then they will no longer be able to move the grains and the grains will be deposited. This is what you see when a big river meets the sea and deposits a delta- the river has dumped the sediment load it was carrying and created a cone-like pile of sediment at the river mouth where the processes of river and ocean interact. The Nile delta is nicely triangular, which is why we call them deltas, whereas the Mississippi River carries a lot of fine grained material and the influence of the river is much more obvious giving a long "birds-foot" type of delta.



Depending on the type of currents that transported this material after it has been eroded then you will end up with different types of rock at the depositional site, conglomerates have the largest grain sizes, sandstones are made up of sand-sized grains and in the areas where there is little or no current activity the very finest particles can settle out as claystone.



These sediments, if they are not eroded away themselves, can become lithified (turned into rock) by the processes of compaction (that's the weight of more and more sediment being piled on top) and cementation (that's the precipitation of minerals in the tiny spaces left between the grains by water moving through the sediment). When the sediments are hardened they become sedimentary rocks.



Rocks formed in this manner are called clastic rocks. Other types of sedimentary rocks are formed by direct precipitation from water and are termed evaporites (things like salt and gypsum fall into this category). In the case of rocks formed from the remains of the calcium carbonate skeletons of mostly invertebrates and microorganisms we call those carbonates and they include limestone and chalk.



The sedimentary rocks and igneous rocks may also be altered by the enormous pressures and high temperatures created when tectonic plates collide and these rocks are squeezed, or altered by coming into contact with magma as it works it's way through the earth's crust. These rocks may undergo growth of new minerals and be bent and buckled, may be partly melted and recrystallised and the structures that they originally had may be completely changed. This process is termed metamorphosis and the rocks that are formed are set to be metamorphic rocks.



The process of plate collision and mountain forming can force rocks which were deposited in shallow seas, or in deep oceans up into huge mountain chains- like the Himalaya that we see today. Those rocks will then be subjected to the same processes of erosion that I described at the beginning of this section, they will be broken down by rain, wind, ice, thermal expansion and contraction, they will be crushed and broken by glaciers, transported in mountain torrents and floods and will go on to form yet more rocks in the continual cycle of



erosion-transport-deposition-uplift -erosion



The eroded stumps of great mountain ranges litter the globe, testifying to this cycle having been in operation for billions of years.



And that's the rock cycle.







You'll recall the description above about things like river currents transporting sediment- whether it's cobbles or boulders or sand. The inclusion of this material within the river makes the river a powerful abrasive agent, able to scour and erode the river bed and the river banks even where these are formed from solid rock. There are other important processes, the effect of ice mentioned earlier and the thermal expansion and contraction of rocks as the heat up during the day and cool down at night are significant in desertic environments. In addition many of the rocks in the Grand Canyon are limestones and these are eroded by a process called dissolution, where rainwater that has absorbed carbon dioxide is mildly acidic and that dissolves the calcium carbonate which makes up the limestone and carries those soluble products away in the river water in a dissolved form.



The Colorado River, which is now located at the bottom of that canyon, has cut through the predominantly sedimentary rocks over a very long period of time, removing that material and transporting it downriver towards the ocean. The rocks which it has eroded were deposited millions of years before that river ever existed. For a long period of earth’s history the place which is now occupied by the Grand Canyon has been underwater, with deposition of marine sediments containing fossils of marine creatures.



When I say "the place which is now occupied by the Grand Canyon" you have to understand that the evidence we have from paleomagnetics and other sources indicate “that place” itself has migrated and wandered around the planet quite a bit, putting it in different climatic zones and different environments. During that time the levels of the landmass and the oceans have changed many times, so that in some periods the area of the canyon was located in deep water, in other periods in shallow water and in other periods completely out of water.



These different environments produce different types of rocks and different types of fossils allowing the geoscientists to say with some confidence what was happening at that particular time. During some periods the area was uplifted and suffered erosion, so that instead of sedimentary rocks being deposited they were being eroded away and transported away from the area, to accumulate somewhere else. If you just look at the uppermost and therefore youngest layers of the rocks in the wall of the Grand Canyon we see that the Coconino Sandstone, that we talked about before, is the deposit of sand dunes in a desert environment and is overlain by the Kaiba Limestones, deposited in a warm shallow sea and containing abundant marine fossils. The present day Colorado River is much younger than both of these strata and cuts through these and all of the strata beneath, right down to what we call PreCambrian Basement rocks.









The detail can be daunting, but the concepts are understandable by a high school student, provided that they are approached with an open mind rather than attempting to refute everything at every stage before you have developed the basic vocabulary to understanding what is happening.







I don’t know the answer to that off the top of my head. Certainly many of these Formations (groups of strata) extend over vast areas around the canyon but no, they don’t extend across the whole United States, different strata occur in different areas, as mapped by the US Geological Survey.







Many of the products of the erosion in the Canyon and the sediment transported by the Colorado River will be deposited in the floodplains in the lower reaches of the river and where it meets the ocean. These will then have been subject to oceanic processes and, in the particular location where the river meets the sea being in a tectonically active zone (where there are lots of earth movements) the location of depositional sites can change over time. These sediments may have continued to be transported along shore, down into deeper water or concentrated the sediment on the coastline, depending on the balance between the space available for the sediment to be placed into, the sea level at the time and the amount of sediment being supplied.



In the present day of course the discharge of the river is tiny in comparison , as much sediment (and water) is retained by the many dams that have been constructed.







Yes there is, but a journey of a thousand miles must start with a single step. The information is there it only needs you to approach it with an open mind.







I think I answered this one earlier. For a long period of time the area where the Canyon is now located was indeed underwater. Changes in sea level throughout the long history of the deposition of those rocks has produced changes in the rock types that were produced. During some periods there was no deposition, only erosion.







Everyone loves dinos don’t they J So far as I’m aware there aren’t fossils of dinosaurs in the rocks which make up most of the walls of the Grand Canyon because those strata are Palaeozoic, meaning that they are older than the dinosaurs.



I hope this has gone some way towards answering your questions.



Leccy[/QUOTE]
This last post has been very helpful to me.

I am trying to determine for myself if the existence of the flood would require a miracle or not.

My problem is that a logical progression will typically prove the base assumptions.

So only inspecting data from a non-flood assumption will not prove anything for me other then that you started from the assumption that there was not a flood.

If I assume the flood did not happen then I will prove the flood did not happen.

If I assume the flood did happen then I will prove the flood did happen.


I must compare the outcome of each idea and see how well they fit the data.
We are dealing with several large assumption in either case.


Assuming the flood is true is a "big one"
So is assuming the "continent has floated around to different climates" ( several times? ).


With the present information I have either one of these assumptions could prove true if given as a base assumption.
The big problem I see at this point is there is so much emotional involvement.

There is a large part of the population which would prefer that God was not involved and that every thing could be explained with physical laws which are known to them.

There is another part of the population which believe the Bible is Gods word as I do myself. Unfortunately the desire to "help God out" can cause a premature acceptance of misinformation and I am only interested in the truth.

Getting unbiased facts from these two groups is difficult at best.

The existence of a flood impacts the theological questions as much as it does the scientific questions.

Finding informational facts is very difficult as everyone wants to "give their interpretation and not factual data.

I can find a hundred sites that will tell me how old the Grand Canyon is.
A parallel unbiast discussion of the evidence from both views?

Now that, would take a miracle.

Duane

 

[duordi]

That cannot work. There are angular unconformities between some of the layers. Those represent the passage of great periods of time, with erosion rather than deposition.



You'd have a fossiliferous sandstone, or fossiliferous conglomerate or some other fossiliferous sedimentary rock. These are things which we see on a regular basis- all clastic sedimentary rocks are made from older rocks.



It would make for some dates. Whether they are interesting depends on what they are. Be aware that relative dating, using fossil evidence is very well established and very well understood. The intercalation of volcanic deposits within sequences of sedimentary rocks gives the opportunity for radiometric dates to be used to calibrate these time scales.



From the above link



The Coconino Sandstone is generally held to be a continental clastic deposit, formed as sand dunes in a sub-aerial environment, not underwater. The presence of tracks of land-dwelling invertebrates is most consistent with this intepretation. This has been discussed many times in this forum, which a search for Coconino will reveal previous threads discussing these rocks.

How is it possibe to have tracks with no other fossils?

How hard have we looked for them?

Duane

 

[leccy]

How is it possibe to have tracks with no other fossils?

How hard have we looked for them?

Duane

I'd imagine that they have looked quite hard for them.

The conditions for the preservation of body fossils are not necessarily the same as for tracks and traces. For instance the locomotive track of a trilobite is a very distinctive trace called Cruziana, whilst the resting trace of a trilobite is a sort of lobed blob that is found on the base of the bed where the trilobite rested, called Rusophycus. In some formations these traces absolutely cover bedding planes, but fossils of the creature itelf are only rarely found, or not at all. One organism can potentially make a lot of tracks and under the right conditions these tracks may be preserved, whilst the organism itself may not be fossilised at all.

Of course the reverse is also true, if the calibre of the sediment is not conducive to the preservation of tracks or burrows, but is amenable to the body parts being preserved then the body fossils can be found in layers which lack the tracks and trails.

 

[leccy]

[/color]

This last post has been very helpful to me.

Good. Would you do me the courtesy of fixing the broken quote tags so that the text I wrote is correctly attributed, or you could just remove it all together for brevity. I'm not about to go back and delete it.

I am trying to determine for myself if the existence of the flood would require a miracle or not.

My problem is that a logical progression will typically prove the base assumptions.

So only inspecting data from a non-flood assumption will not prove anything for me other then that you started from the assumption that there was not a flood.

If I assume the flood did not happen then I will prove the flood did not happen.

If I assume the flood did happen then I will prove the flood did happen.

No. you're mistaken and your reservations are unfounded. In interpreting these data there are no assumptions made about whether a flood did or did not occur, just as there are no assumptions whether or not the moon is made of green cheese. The flood doesn't enter into the interpretation. If an assumption were made that the flood did occur and that an explanation of the data must be couched in terms of the flood then that is a clear example of making the conclusion before examining the evidence. It's what groups like AiG do, not what scientists do.

I must compare the outcome of each idea and see how well they fit the data.
We are dealing with several large assumption in either case.


Assuming the flood is true is a "big one"
So is assuming the "continent has floated around to different climates" ( several times? ).

No, those two ideas are quite different.

To make a prior assumption that the flood is true would be doing so against the evidence. The interpretation of the Coconino Sandstones, sandwiched between marine deposits above and below whilst containing the physical evidence in the form of distinctive sedimentary structures and traces of a sub-aerial environment would falsify a flood-based explanation for that layer itself, purely from that data alone.

The plate tectonic explanation for the shift in environments being due, at least in part, to the present day area of the Grand Canyon having been located in different climatic belts is an explanation of the observations made in the area itself with models derived from evidence around the globe, thereby providing a mechanism for those changes. The same interpretation of the environment would be made in the abscence of that plate tectonics explanation.

With the present information I have either one of these assumptions could prove true if given as a base assumption.
The big problem I see at this point is there is so much emotional involvement.

There is a large part of the population which would prefer that God was not involved and that every thing could be explained with physical laws which are known to them.

That's science. If you desire, or require a supernatural explanation for something then that is something that science can't help you with. However the geologists who examined and interpreted those rocks, those environments and came up with those explanations by way of science will have done so based on their observations and not on their emotions. The other thing is that, since much of the work was done in the USA then there is a pretty good chance that those geoscientists included a substantial number of Christians.

There is another part of the population which believe the Bible is Gods word as I do myself. Unfortunately the desire to "help God out" can cause a premature acceptance of misinformation and I am only interested in the truth.

God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, if he exists he probably doesn't need your help.

Getting unbiased facts from these two groups is difficult at best.

The existence of a flood impacts the theological questions as much as it does the scientific questions.

Finding informational facts is very difficult as everyone wants to "give their interpretation and not factual data.

What exactly do you consider to be factual data?

The existence of a flood, assuming you mean the global biblical flood, doesn't currently impact on scientific questions because the evidence has already refuted that the flood happened. The key feature of scientific evidence is that it can be examined by anyone and they can make their own interpretations once they are equipped with the tools to do so. Evaluation of the validity or any bias in the data or interpretations of that data are then available by the repeatability of those data and tests of the predictions which the interpretations make.

The theological aspects seem to be dealt with by the vast majority of Christian quite easily and I'm led to believe that the interpretation of the flood is "not a salvation issue".

I can find a hundred sites that will tell me how old the Grand Canyon is.
A parallel unbiast discussion of the evidence from both views?

Now that, would take a miracle.

Duane

The two views are mutally exclusive. The interpretation of the Bible propounded by YECs is that Noah's Flood really happened about 3-4,000 years ago (dates vary) and was responsible for the destruction of the world's biosphere, all but 8 of the world's population and the deposition of all fossiliferous strata on this earth. Attributing the formation of the Grand Canyon to the receding waters of Noah's Flood isn't part of Scripture. The Grand Canyon isn't even mentioned in the Bible, the details of the effects of the flood waters on the earth are not mentioned in the Bible.

So those interpretations of Flood Geology do not come pre-packaged from the Bible and they certainly don't come from looking at the rocks in a scientific manner. The evidence, examined by thousands of scientists over the past couple of centuries, is that the Earth is old, that the biblical global flood never occurred and that the Grand Canyon was created in the relatively recent past (several million years) by the actions of the Colorado River. Sorry, but that is what the geology and geomorphology indicates.

 

[duordi]

I'd imagine that they have looked quite hard for them.

The conditions for the preservation of body fossils are not necessarily the same as for tracks and traces. For instance the locomotive track of a trilobite is a very distinctive trace called Cruziana, whilst the resting trace of a trilobite is a sort of lobed blob that is found on the base of the bed where the trilobite rested, called Rusophycus. In some formations these traces absolutely cover bedding planes, but fossils of the creature itelf are only rarely found, or not at all. One organism can potentially make a lot of tracks and under the right conditions these tracks may be preserved, whilst the organism itself may not be fossilised at all.

Of course the reverse is also true, if the calibre of the sediment is not conducive to the preservation of tracks or burrows, but is amenable to the body parts being preserved then the body fossils can be found in layers which lack the tracks and trails.

It would seem that some of the animals remains would be found even if it was only a 1 in 1000 chance.

Is it possible that the tracks are caused by some other event besides a living organism?

I mean I would assume this is discussed and debated.

Are there any other opinions?

Duane

 

[leccy]

It would seem that some of the animals remains would be found even if it was only a 1 in 1000 chance.

Is it possible that the tracks are caused by some other event besides a living organism?

Such as?

The spider and millipede tracks from the Coconino Sandstone seem fairly distinctive. Ichnologists (people who study trace fossils) make a study of the morphology of the various traces that they find and compare them to modern living animals. I'd imagine that modern day trackers use this sort of information all the time with extant animals. From the spacing, depth and orientation of those traces an experienced ichnologist could model the movement of the creature that made them. This is routinely done for vertebrate tracks in particular and tell us something of how they moved.

There are some pretty amazing things in rocks* and geologists, being as they are really interested in rocks, do all that they can to understand what made them. So in answer to your question then yes, these things are debated and discussed at length and are subjected to rigorous peer review in the field, at conferences and in the literature.

Leccy







*As an aside an example of an amazing thing in a rock that isn't made by a creature is a fulgarite. This consists of tubes of fused sand caused when lightning strikes on wet, unconsolidated sand, such as on a beach. The lightning strike causes the sand grains to be fused together and creates a 3d structure, shaped like a set of plant roots in the sand. Some people would describe this as fossil lightning

http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2000/03/27.html

 

[duordi]

The evidence, examined by thousands of scientists over the past couple of centuries, is that the Earth is old, that the biblical global flood never occurred and that the Grand Canyon was created in the relatively recent past (several million years) by the actions of the Colorado River. Sorry, but that is what the geology and geomorphology indicates.

This is where it gets tricky.

If the thousands of scientists over the past couple of centuries made the same assumption they would come to the same conclusion.

And I might add if I make the same assumption I to come to the same conclusion.

But how do I know the assumption is correct??

The assumption of an old Earth can be fitted with the evidence with some problems as would be expected.

So does the catastrophic event idea fit with some problems as would be expected.

The radioactive dates were my big hope of getting a final answer but it is not an independent source of information.

Radioactive dates are based on assumptions of how much of the stable elements have degenerated from the radioactive elements and how much was there originally at the event of rock formation.

So how do I know that the assumption of original content is correct.

I can change the assumption and change the date to prove any outcome I choose so radioactive dating is calibrated based on the assumption of age you give it.

What if the Radioactive dating had been "calibrated" for 6000 years and the assumption was used that the materials contained in the rock at its formation was as necessary to verify the 6000 year date. How would you determine the dating information was false?



I need a reason, a fact that I can check.

"A million smart people said so" is not a reason that I can research.

What I have now is the grand canyon is mostly sedimentary rock which was mostly formed by water in layers.

The layers contain different fossils but most of them contain marine life.

The rock was at one time ( ,or more ) below water.
The layers of rock contain fossils from different climates.

The layers cover vast areas and are not local events.

Some areas indicate a layer has been removed.

The layers are thick and represent the movement of a lot of rock etc.

I can slide the continent around the Earth collecting fossils over a long time period or I can wash all the new fossil layers on top of a pre-flood stationary continent.

I can let the layers depend on density and geographical location or I can let the layers depend on time and change of the species.

Of course any anomaly for either idea can be explained by changing the geographic location or time of the species origination.

You said that the existance of the flood has already been delt with as do others who disagree with you, so it must be that I have not happened on that specific fact that is the key information, for I have found nothing yet that is unexplainable from either point of view.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Such as?

The spider and millipede tracks from the Coconino Sandstone seem fairly distinctive. Ichnologists (people who study trace fossils) make a study of the morphology of the various traces that they find and compare them to modern living animals. I'd imagine that modern day trackers use this sort of information all the time with extant animals. From the spacing, depth and orientation of those traces an experienced ichnologist could model the movement of the creature that made them. This is routinely done for vertebrate tracks in particular and tell us something of how they moved.

There are some pretty amazing things in rocks* and geologists, being as they are really interested in rocks, do all that they can to understand what made them. So in answer to your question then yes, these things are debated and discussed at length and are subjected to rigorous peer review in the field, at conferences and in the literature.

Leccy







*As an aside an example of an amazing thing in a rock that isn't made by a creature is a fulgarite. This consists of tubes of fused sand caused when lightning strikes on wet, unconsolidated sand, such as on a beach. The lightning strike causes the sand grains to be fused together and creates a 3d structure, shaped like a set of plant roots in the sand. Some people would describe this as fossil lightning

http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2000/03/27.html

Thanks every time you post I learn something.

Duane

 

[gluadys]

This is where it gets tricky.

If the thousands of scientists over the past couple of centuries made the same assumption they would come to the same conclusion.

And I might add if I make the same assumption I to come to the same conclusion.

But how do I know the assumption is correct??

The assumption of an old Earth can be fitted with the evidence with some problems as would be expected.

But when geology was getting started as a science a couple of centuries ago, those scientists were not assuming an old earth with no global flood. They were assuming a young earth and a global flood.

So the current assessment that the earth is old and there was no global flood is not an assumption, but a conclusion from the evidence. This evidence lead to scientists concluding their original assumption was incorrect.

The radioactive dates were my big hope of getting a final answer but it is not an independent source of information.

Radioactive dates are based on assumptions of how much of the stable elements have degenerated from the radioactive elements and how much was there originally at the event of rock formation.

So how do I know that the assumption of original content is correct.

No, that is not an assumption either. Every method of determining dates from radio-active decay has been tested to find out whether they actually work. The estimates of parent and daughter elements are not uncritically assumed, but based on the outcome of previous testing of the method.

What if the Radioactive dating had been "calibrated" for 6000 years and the assumption was used that the materials contained in the rock at its formation was as necessary to verify the 6000 year date. How would you determine the dating information was false?

This question indicates that you don't know the meaning or method of "calibration".

 

[duordi]

But when geology was getting started as a science a couple of centuries ago, those scientists were not assuming an old earth with no global flood. They were assuming a young earth and a global flood.

That is fine with me.

I could assign motives from an emotional perspective which would indicate a incentive toward a new Earth theory or an old Earth theory. My interest is not really in debating the motives of the theory originators. Or even to judge them as they had less information then we do. They had to make their decisions based on what they had. I am just determined to see the evidence we have now. As long as I get to see the evidence I’m happy.

So the current assessment that the earth is old and there was no global flood is not an assumption, but a conclusion from the evidence. This evidence lead to scientists concluding their original assumption was incorrect.

Or the conclusions could be a reflection of the direction of the theological belief of society as a whole and not necessarily of science facts.

Consider that the belief in a new earth, you would assign to society beliefs, and not evidence of science.

But now you assign science the reason of a different opnion, and consider society beliefs to have no effect.

We are not so different from our ancestors that we are as immune to a predominant belief as you may think.

No, that is not an assumption either. Every method of determining dates from radio-active decay has been tested to find out whether they actually work. The estimates of parent and daughter elements are not uncritically assumed, but based on the outcome of previous testing of the method.

This question indicates that you don't know the meaning or method of "calibration".

You know me well enough to be sure that I have inspected radioactive dating as I do habitually with all topics I investigate.

I am of course not an expert, however I do know several things for sure.

When the dates are proven wrong the data is revised to correct it.

You can not adjust the gravitational constant because the gravitational constant is based on science.

The date of geological rocks are based on theory, estimation, and huge extrapolations.

The assumption of how much trace elements you start with is a guess guided by the assumptions you made.

So radioactive dating is like using a yard tick with no lines.

Where do I draw the lines.

This does not prove the dates typically used are wrong, and I am not saying it does.

But I am only interested in what I can know for sure.

If I can not know for sure, then I will not chase after dreams, but be content with what I do know.

Are the assumptions used capable of varying the dates form 6000 to 4.5 billion years?

Of this I am unsure.

It would not seem likely, however I can not give a logical argument preventing it.

Duane

PS what do you think of the disclaimer?

Disclaimer:
I am not God, and my posts are not inspired, unless they are Bible quotes.
My intent is to post my assumptions and information gathered to allow the reader the freedom to decide for themselves.
My opnions will change as I learn, and I do not apologize for this.

 

[gluadys]

Or the conclusions could be a reflection of the direction of the theological belief of society as a whole and not necessarily of science facts.

And at the time the theological belief of society as a whole was acceptance of a young earth and a global flood. The early geologists were breaking new ground, not following the crowd.

We are not so different from our ancestors that we are as immune to a predominant belief as you may think.

I'm not saying that. I am saying what the predominant belief of the time was. Scientists who were influenced by that belief looked for evidence of the flood because they believed it had really happened. They began with modest estimates of the age of the earth and only increased their estimates when the evidence demanded it.

In our society the predominant belief has changed because of the conclusions those early geologists came to, which have been consistently re-inforced by more evidence.

When the dates are proven wrong the data is revised to correct it.

I think you are the one making the assumptions here. Can you provide evidence of this procedure?

You can not adjust the gravitational constant because the gravitational constant is based on science.

The gravitational constant is a number. Nothing more. When you use it in math your math matches nature. When you leave it out your math no longer coincides with nature. So what will you do if you want an equation that coincides with what you observe in nature?

The date of geological rocks are based on theory, estimation, and huge extrapolations.

What huge extrapolations? Are you making assumptions again?

The assumption of how much trace elements you start with is a guess guided by the assumptions you made.

It is not always a guess. And even when it is, it is a guess that is measured. It is not a guess based on untested assumptions.

So radioactive dating is like using a yard tick with no lines.

Not true. The lines may sometimes be ranges (i.e. 2-6 rather than 4, or 4 + or - 2 rather than just 4) but they are still meaningful in their context. I think you need to do some more studying of how radiometry is actually applied.

But I am only interested in what I can know for sure.

If I can not know for sure, then I will not chase after dreams, but be content with what I do know.

In science you can't know for sure. We could only know for sure if we had access to all the evidence, and we don't. We never will. However, we can still make rational judgments of which scientific models best describe the evidence we have.

Are the assumptions used capable of varying the dates form 6000 to 4.5 billion years?

No. And the reasons can be calculated mathematically. That puts me at a disadvantage because I don't deal well with advanced mathematics. So I will let you look that up yourself.

PS what do you think of the disclaimer?

Neat. I especially like the last line.