Where do the flood strata start and end?

[troodon]

I have yet to see on any creationist website provide a straight-up explanation of what rock formations were formed before the Flood, what formations were formed during the Flood, and what formations were formed after the Flood. It could be that I just haven't found them yet, or that creationists publish this information in other outlets like books. Although I'm inclined to believe that creationists just haven't bothered to identify Flood strata.

If I were a creationist trying to add scientific legitimacy to my belief this is the very first place I would start. Since the Flood is such a pivotal component to YEC geology it is imperative that you start out by identifying what strata were laid down during the flood, which ones are older, and which ones are younger. Without first figuring that out you can't approach the earth's geology and try to explain it under a YEC paradigm.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I think it is that the YECs believe that all the rock layers were deposited by the flood, and that’s the end of it. The bible says that the flood covered the mountains of Ararat, so it must have been a global flood. Answers in genesis have done some testing; various coal samples, and have got a carbon date of 40-50,000 years.
Either that is the actual date for coal, or there has been a little contamination. They have also dated fossilised wood in various rock layers, and get various carbon dates in the many thousands of years, not millions. AiG are honest enough to just show the results for what they are, and then their theory is that the magnetic field was different before the flood, a messaging factor, in my opinion.

I think that YECs need to reconsider this dogmatic stand that the earth must be 6000 years old because the bible says so. I think that is just driving people into atheism; people are bright enough to suspect that the YECs 6000 years is not the truth. Otherwise it would take an enormous conspiracy, for all the universities to be teaching mainstream geology.

I however, do not trust the naturalistic camp either. I am not sold on their age of the earth, and their dates for fossils. I am still studying and trying to get to the truth. Some of the YECs evidence for a young earth is worth considering; the number of comets, for one. At the moment, I suspect that the earth is some millions of years, not 4.5 billion years. But I need to continue to study the evidence, but that’s just me.

Michael Cremo has written a popular book, I read some of it. It’s popular because it is not creationist (nobody reads creationist books) but Cremo believes that humans go back many millions of years, because human artefacts turn up in coal etc. I think it is that he has assumed that the conventional dating is completely solid. Humanity probably goes back 130,000 years, not millions. But that’s an awful long time to be grubbing around in the dirt, for modern humans.

Tin foil hats on please.

And my theory is that people developed advanced technology many thousands of years ago, and that when NASA stop being so deceitful all the time, and do a proper mapping of the moon, and show it on google moon, (which should have been done 30 years ago) then we will see the evidence on the moon, of that ancient human colonisation. If you look at google mars, it is better resolution than google moon; a lot better. They have resolved up close the Cydonia hill, which was thought to be a face.

I think that NASA have got too much to hide, with the moon. As long as this situation lasts, the rest of us will be denied the truth about what is on the moon. There doesn’t seem to be anything much on mars. Perhaps it is too far to go, and not suitable for colonisation.

 

[troodon]

I think it is that the YECs believe that all the rock layers were deposited by the flood, and that’s the end of it.

I don't think so, I think even they account for fossil footprints and egg nests.

 

[juvenissun]

I have yet to see on any creationist website provide a straight-up explanation of what rock formations were formed before the Flood, what formations were formed during the Flood, and what formations were formed after the Flood. It could be that I just haven't found them yet, or that creationists publish this information in other outlets like books. Although I'm inclined to believe that creationists just haven't bothered to identify Flood strata.

If I were a creationist trying to add scientific legitimacy to my belief this is the very first place I would start. Since the Flood is such a pivotal component to YEC geology it is imperative that you start out by identifying what strata were laid down during the flood, which ones are older, and which ones are younger. Without first figuring that out you can't approach the earth's geology and try to explain it under a YEC paradigm.

It is easy to mix things up and make any explanation difficult. So, before any explanation is made, one thing should be cleared up: You are trying to talk about geology, which is a science. If so, you should not insert the 6000 years remark into the argument, because it is not coming from science, but comes from religion. So, first, thrown that 6000-year info away.

Second, we need to straighten the concept on the flow conditions of the Global Flood. One of the most common misconception is that the Global Flood must make violent water flow all over the world (so deposit rock layer which shows the sign of turbulent flow). This is wrong. Many places, if not most places, during the time of the Global Flood were simply quite and it would deposit any regular sedimentary layers, such as sandstone, mudstone or even limestone. Any rock layer made during the Flood does NOT need to show any sign of flood.

Third, there ARE many many layers of rocks that do show the sign of flood. They are regionally discontinuous and they are not of the same age. So, it is hard to assign any one of them as THE layer made in the Global Flood.

Fourth, a large flood or the Global Flood will create extensive erosional surface, on which, NOTHING was deposited.

Fifth, a lot of sediments should be washed into the ocean when the Global Flood receded. So, at the bottom of deep ocean, there should exist some flood beds. However, this is true ALL THE TIME. We can not tell which flood bed in the ocean was made by the Global Flood.

It is not that YEC does not want to identify the rock layers made by the Global Flood. It is the fact that rock layers do not bear a hallmark of the Global Flood. The Flood bed could virtually be ANY sedimentary rock layer. So the query of finding any particular Flood layer is not an appropriate question.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by troodon

I have yet to see on any creationist website provide a straight-up explanation of what rock formations were formed before the Flood, what formations were formed during the Flood, and what formations were formed after the Flood.

Dear Troodon, That's because our Earth has NEVER suffered a Global Flood. If it had, the surface of our Planet would have been totally destroyed and the water would still be here. Can you imagine the water pressure exerted by 30,000 feet of water? Atomic submarines have been crushed by the water pressure of much less depth.

The world of Adam, made on the 2nd Day, is the one destroyed in the Flood. Our Earth is still here demonstrating that it has Never been destroyed by a Global Flood. Our earth will be burned. ll Peter 3:10

That is WHY God made 3 heavens. Christians will be taken to the 3rd heaven when our earth is totally destroyed with Fire. The present 2nd heaven and the 3rd heaven were made the SAME day the first earth was made, the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4

In Love,
Aman
​

 

[troodon]

It is easy to mix things up and make any explanation difficult. So, before any explanation is made, one thing should be cleared up: You are trying to talk about geology, which is a science. If so, you should not insert the 6000 years remark into the argument, because it is not coming from science, but comes from religion. So, first, thrown that 6000-year info away.

I'm trying to see how people who believe in a 6000 year old earth explain earth's geology, so a young earth is certainly a central facet to the discussion.

Also I should point out that a global flood "comes from religion", not science. No one ever looked at earth's geology and said "yep, the only way to explain this is with a global flood".

Second, we need to straighten the concept on the flow conditions of the Global Flood. One of the most common misconception is that the Global Flood must make violent water flow all over the world (so deposit rock layer which shows the sign of turbulent flow). This is wrong. Many places, if not most places, during the time of the Global Flood were simply quite and it would deposit any regular sedimentary layers, such as sandstone, mudstone or even limestone. Any rock layer made during the Flood does NOT need to show any sign of flood.

It's conceivable, I suppose, that things did eventually quiet down. But as you say the lower contact would have to be an unconformity. I'll grant you that the contact wouldn't necessarily have to be continuous beyond the regional scale because of paleotopography, but it would always be there if you had both pre-flood and post-flood sediments in a rock sequence, and it should be traceable for considerable distances.

Third, there ARE many many layers of rocks that do show the sign of flood. They are regionally discontinuous and they are not of the same age. So, it is hard to assign any one of them as THE layer made in the Global Flood.

This is exactly what I'm trying to find out. What formations or members are supposedly Flood deposits? I want names!!!

It is not that YEC does not want to identify the rock layers made by the Global Flood. It is the fact that rock layers do not bear a hallmark of the Global Flood. The Flood bed could virtually be ANY sedimentary rock layer. So the query of finding any particular Flood layer is not an appropriate question.

"It's too hard!" is not a satisfactory excuse in modern science, and if creationists want to pretend that science backs them up they have to be able to answer (or at least be willing to address) basic questions such as this.

 

[ChetSinger]

If you want articles written by specialists, you could subscribe to the Journal of Creation (formerly TJ). Some of their articles are available in archives, too.

 

[troodon]

I could think of much better ways to spend $40, and I shouldn't require a journal subscription to get an answer to such a basic question. Type "fluvial formation" into google scholar and you get lots of names of geologic units deposited by rivers. All I want are names of units supposedly deposited during the Flood or, barring that, names of units that bracket the Flood unconformity.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

how does yec flood theory explain the white cliffs of dover?

 

[ChetSinger]

how does yec flood theory explain the white cliffs of dover?

I went to creation.com, typed "white cliffs of dover" into their search box and came up with this:

Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds?

It's a 1994 article in Journal of Creation. The article reprints from the Journal are the more technical ones, written by specialists (that author, Andrew Snelling, is a geologist).

I know you've visited that website before, so try searching through it. They must have thousands of pages in their archives. I'm regularly surprised by what I can find there.

 

[pshun2404]

Well to start off troodon, I am not a YEC but I do very much believe in the flood having occurred but it will takle a few posts to give even a brief outline of all the issues. To begin with, there appears to be an assumption in your already derived conclusion that is actually not correct. You are under the deception of uniformitarianism and gradualism neither of which have been demonstrated in any way closely conclusively from the geological data. Only when that data is retranslated by evolutionary biologists and Darwinian paleontologists does it end up looking like what I sense you believe.

So first of all there are two main schools of thought one is yours (the only one the pedagogues will allow to be taught as truth) and the cataclysmic theory which is mentioned and included to explain special irresolvable conflicts and wherever the truth of it cannot be denied, but clearly it is clouded out by the neo-Darwinian rulers of curriculum content in most Universities today.

So your assumption here implies one should be able to point out some layers in the geological column (let’s pretend…say three through seven up from the Cambrian) that represent wherever we look “the flood layers” but this is an erroneous misnomer. It is gradualism that would or should present the continuity of layers in all locations which of course we do not find. In truth we find varying numbers and thickness of the layers as we travel and explore the world. Even the fossil remains we find in these layers varies. This truth can only be adequately explained by the cataclysmic view. Neither is gradualism represented in the species we find in these various layers. I love the fact that in many layers creatures are stuck in what can only be called “the struggle for survival”. This is especially true of the many struggling fish fossils where in a layer that allegedly took 1,000s if not millions of years to form we find fish fossils of these poor creatures struggling to get air but not rotted. Now any common sense fisherman knows it only takes a few days for a fish to utterly rot. So 1,000s or 1,000,000s of years? You know better. So we know in truth that plate shifts, glacial movements, impact, radiation levels (which differ throughout time), flooding (both local, torrential like with Tsunamis, and cataclysmic as in near of not global, movement of magma, subduction, etc., all change the layers in different places to differ from the layers in other places. Waters propelled from below exploding up into the atmosphere and pounding down, along with torrential rains from above, and all the tidal wave activity topped off by the drainage into allocthonous pits (like La Brea and others that drag in species of plant and animal from vastly different geo-physical regions) could not possibly (at least scientifically) leave a neat set of gradually formed layers one could easily point out. But rather the fossils like the struggling fish and the various Polystrate fossils (and so much more) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that in reality (not the interpretation of data to fit ones preconceived conclusion) many if not most of the layers were laid down rather quickly. Imagine a still rooted tree spanning three layers (alleging to be 1,000s of years old). Do you really think the after the base was fossilized (which the explosion in Hawaii and at Mount St, Helens show can happen rather fast) that the mid-section layer and the living top of the tree could have continued on for 1,000s of more years? Really? You know you know better.

So having established that truth that

a) The layers are nowhere “uniform”
b) That many did not take 1,000s of years or in some cases 1,000,000s
c) And that cataclysm theory better explains the layers as we see them
and that perhaps to be graceful we can throw in bouts of gradualism in
various localities but definitely not uniformly around the world.

Now of course this is all quite simplified because this is a discussion forum and I am not writing a book here, but now in the next post let’s look at measuring the layers…

And by the way Archaeopteryx is just a bird and nothing else but save that for another thread. Some birds and some reptiles have similarities in bone structure but then again Homology is not real science because phyla have similarities does not mean, let alone even remotely prove, that they are relatives in the sense one became the other. Also remember the big tadoo over Archaeoraptor, all those grants from National Geographic and being pasted all over magazines and peer journals? And then remember how Dr. Xi proved it was a hoax? How embarrassing (of course only one of the many hoaxes still believed by those victimized by that form of brainwashing)…you know get a few MA’s and Ph.D.s to repeat a lie enough times and the masses assume it must be true…

It’s like what Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda Minister once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State (or in this case the controlling pedagoguery) can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State (or the controlling pedagogues) to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

Some thoughts on measuring (dating) the layers…

First off the number and thickness varies by locality around the world (a massive flood would only add to such a phenomena and gradualism would not…it would be much more uniform).

We mostly measure or date the layers by historical predictabilities (like the evidence of the giant Meteor strike alleged to be 65,000,000 years ago…but is really a line of best guess deduction) and by other signs like what we find in them for materials and life forms, etc., but these vary in the same numbered layer in various places in the world.

Here is what Stephen J. Gould discovered when he gave an honest look at the actual evidence from the geological column… In one of his regular articles in the professional periodical, “Natural History“ (see the May 1977 issue), Gould admitted, among the inner-circle of his peers that, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of Paleontology”! So first off he is not saying they do not appear but that in his opinion they are extremely rare, however he could give no specific examples. The problem is the rare ones are mostly being interpreted as intermediary phases but that is by assumption mostly based on similarities of form (again Homology is not science it is assumption…interpreting data to fit the theory rather than allowing the data to shape the theory). In other words if two creatures have wings, they must be related, But such thinking is scientifically erroneous. He goes on to state as a matter of established fact that, “In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.“ Yes there are none and then viola there it is fully formed with all its interdependent subsystems in place and fully operative.

Take for example the Nautilus, a prehistoric deep sea creature that still exists in our time? DNA tests have indeed been done, and it appears this species shows no change in the essential DNA pattern whatsoever! Nothing that could imply this phyla grew from within a different phyla. After allegedly 600,000,000 years Nautilis still shows zero evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense! But they exclude this truth from your education. The Horseshoe crab and the crustacean Triops Cancriformos have also been tested and guess what? You guessed it, same! Triops Cancriformos can alsoi be found among the first creatures ever in the Cambrian layer. The whole argument that DNA is constantly changing and adapting, and that this contributes to this transmutation process from one phyla to another is just more unfounded yet imprinted theory.

So another factor almost ignored is the fact that we know at different times in history the earth has been subject to different levels of gamma radiation. At times when this is higher, the life forms contain double or even triple the amount of Carbon 14 and this phenomena cannot be accurately traced as to specifically when and for how long. So whenever we measure anything except things from most recent times using a uniform disintegration curve we are almost always off. There is actually no telling where exactly in time these things could have been by this method. So with this one method the farther we go back in time the more in error we can almost be sure of. Another article in another very reliable journal, Science (Vol. 141, 1963, pg. 636), revealed that by the Carbon 14 dating alone, “tissues from living mollusks“ were demonstrated to be “dead for over 3,000 years“, while on the other hand, one Egyptian mummy historically known to be about 2000 year old, could not yield a date older than 250 years. Hello-o! Living mollusks dead for over three thousand years? Can this really be relied upon? Hmmm! With Argon Dating (which is more in error as we get closer to our time) tests similar to those performed at Mt. St. Helen’s were done on lava samples from Hawaii clearly showing that 200 year old lava formations tested out to be approximately 3,000,000 years old! That’s millions, not thousands! The truth is 200 years is a far cry from even 1,000 let alone 1 million. But 3,000,000? I think not.

So when we say we can surmise accurate dates for the layers we are not being totally honest. What we do is take a number of test using a few different methods and plot all the possibility points and draw a line of best guess. So take Nutcracker Man for an example (all textbooks have him at 1.75 million years old) we got a profound variance between about 3,000 and 1,000,000,000 years and chose this as his time (besides his not even being human) because it fit their model…WHAT??? That’s right they did not really know for sure but since this seemed about right to the theory that’s what they went with.

So let me ask you? How do you know that an alleged layer from one time period was really not from a more current one but appears to be a lower (thus appearing to be older) due to subduction. Plus in multiple sedimentary layers heavier and more dense objects would sink more readily and lighter or less dense objects would remain higher in these layers.

So the point is what we can know as factual is not always what was actual.

I want to write more here but this should suffice to cause a stir

Paul

 

[juvenissun]

I'm trying to see how people who believe in a 6000 year old earth explain earth's geology, so a young earth is certainly a central facet to the discussion.

Also I should point out that a global flood "comes from religion", not science. No one ever looked at earth's geology and said "yep, the only way to explain this is with a global flood".

It's conceivable, I suppose, that things did eventually quiet down. But as you say the lower contact would have to be an unconformity. I'll grant you that the contact wouldn't necessarily have to be continuous beyond the regional scale because of paleotopography, but it would always be there if you had both pre-flood and post-flood sediments in a rock sequence, and it should be traceable for considerable distances.

This is exactly what I'm trying to find out. What formations or members are supposedly Flood deposits? I want names!!!

"It's too hard!" is not a satisfactory excuse in modern science, and if creationists want to pretend that science backs them up they have to be able to answer (or at least be willing to address) basic questions such as this.

As I explained, the pre-Flood/Flood contact does not have to be an unconformity. If the pre-Flood layer is a mud layer, then Flood could simply add a new thin bed of sand conformably above it. And the thin sand bed would be the layer you are asking for. It does not need to have a special name and could simply be a part of the shale formation. I am not saying this is the case everywhere, I am saying that it is a possible case somewhere on the earth during the Flood.

Flood is never a good enough reason to name any geological formation. That is why we do not have a formation named after a flood, global or regional.

Yes you are asking a pretty basic question. However this basic question is a wrong one due to the misconception on the nature of a Global Flood. A Global Flood should be a very unique process. Models of normal flood deposit would not apply to it in most of the cases.

Think about a regional flood such as the one happened in the Mediterranean Sea. Would you ask the same question to that case? What answer would you expect to get? A formation caused by that flood? Is there an unconformity, or a special layer of sediments or rock, found anywhere in the area of Mediterranean Sea, that registered the flood?

 

[troodon]

but clearly it is clouded out by the neo-Darwinian rulers of curriculum content in most Universities today.

I'm one of them

pshun2404, there are loads and loads of things I could say about your post but it would only serve to derail this thread where I'm only seeking one thing. Just one incredibly simple thing. All I want is for someone who believes in the global flood to name some rock units that were deposited by the Flood (preferably in the US and even more preferably in the Southwest where I know the stratigraphy better).

If you'd like to post all of this stuff in a separate thread I'd be happy to take the time to go through all of your points.

So your assumption here implies one should be able to point out some layers in the geological column (let’s pretend…say three through seven up from the Cambrian) that represent wherever we look “the flood layers” but this is an erroneous misnomer.

I'm not saying that creationists need to name a geologic period (like, say, the Triassic) that represents flood conditions, I'm saying they need to point at a rock somewhere and say, "See this rock? Ya, Flood rock!"

 

[juvenissun]

Think this from another point of view. If I give you a name of sedimentary formation (pick any marine deposit from the Grand Canyon rock layers) and say that it IS a rock layer made by the Global Flood, how would you defend that it is not? (you do can, but I am not telling you how).

 

[troodon]

As I explained, the pre-Flood/Flood contact does not have to be an unconformity. If the pre-Flood layer is a mud layer, then Flood could simply add a new thin bed of sand conformably above it. And the thin sand bed would be the layer you are asking for. It does not need to have a special name and could simply be a part of the shale formation. I am not saying this is the case everywhere, I am saying that it is a possible case somewhere on the earth during the Flood.

In your first post you said:

"Fourth, a large flood or the Global Flood will create extensive erosional surface, on which, NOTHING was deposited."

The amount of flow we're talking about with the great flood absolutely would have created an erosive contact. I did the math for my last response to you but didn't post it because you agreed with me. If we assume the flood was sufficient to cover all extant topography (I don't know how Floodists feel about that assumption, but there it is) it would have required .25cm of precipitation per second for 40 straight days! That's a huge amount of water flow blanketing the entire earth.

And even if this isn't true. Even if we shouldn't expect a flood unconformity, creationists have to be able to come up with other ways to identify Flood beds. We're not talking about the Mary Celeste here where it's just a mystery and no one knows and we'll never be able to answer it. This is science, and if creation "scientists" want to play with the big boys they need to be able to answer the most fundamental of questions as far as their model is concerned.

Flood is never a good enough reason to name any geological formation. That is why we do not have a formation named after a flood, global or regional.

More likely, at least in the US, it's because the USGS was formed in the 1800s and the global flood had already been falsified by then. And I want to be clear here, I'm not asking just for a formation be identified as flood strata. If you have a formation in mind that you know is pre-flood, and another formation stratigraphically above it that you know is post-flood, I can start with that.

Yes you are asking a pretty basic question. However this basic question is a wrong one due to the misconception on the nature of a Global Flood. A Global Flood should be a very unique process. Models of normal flood deposit would not apply to it in most of the cases.

I can go out to the Moenkopi Formation in Arizona and identify individual river floods. Identifying a world-ending global flood should not be impossible.

Think about a regional flood such as the one happened in the Mediterranean Sea. Would you ask the same question to that case? What answer would you expect to get? A formation caused by that flood? Is there an unconformity, or a special layer of sediments or rock, found anywhere in the area of Mediterranean Sea, that registered the flood?

Absolutely I would expect them to be able to identify sediments (not formations, these aren't rocks) that are pre- and post-flood. According to this they've recently managed to do just that using seismic profiling near Gibraltar.

 

[troodon]

Think this from another point of view. If I give you a name of sedimentary formation (pick any marine deposit from the Grand Canyon rock layers) and say that it IS a rock layer made by the Global Flood, how would you defend that it is not? (you do can, but I am not telling you how).

I don't know yet, at this point I'm just trying to gather information to begin approaching the problem.

 

[pshun2404]

I'm one of them

pshun2404, there are loads and loads of things I could say about your post but it would only serve to derail this thread where I'm only seeking one thing. Just one incredibly simple thing. All I want is for someone who believes in the global flood to name some rock units that were deposited by the Flood (preferably in the US and even more preferably in the Southwest where I know the stratigraphy better).

If you'd like to post all of this stuff in a separate thread I'd be happy to take the time to go through all of your points.

I'm not saying that creationists need to name a geologic period (like, say, the Triassic) that represents flood conditions, I'm saying they need to point at a rock somewhere and say, "See this rock? Ya, Flood rock!"

Okay sorry than my answer is no! I do not believe one can point to a specific set of layers and say "This is it, the flood layers" because they are in different places in different parts of the world. But if time and such a forum allowed I also have about 20 pages of collected material and notes that speak to this phenomena of a massive world wide flood that in today's classrooms are all taken one case at a time but if you really look at them together as different parts of one larger story, IMO they speak to a time when ocean waters were so high and then receded...but layers? No!

Also I would like to add that I also believe it happened because of the Anthropological testimonies from all over the world (over 200 flood stories, myths, and legends). I find it hard to swallow that all these different cultures (especially if Darwinian evolution is true) could have stories and legends about this phenomena that in so many cases agree on so many points. Canadian researcher Dr. Arthur Custance, a Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute has said indisputably, “All 200 some odd Anthropologically recognized flood accounts around the world agree on four points.”

a) In all but the Egyptian, the cause is moral, it is alleged to be a judgment on mankind,

b) Only one man is warned, and saves his family, and/or his closest friends,

c) The world was depopulated, except for a handful of people who alone re-populated the entire world,

d) and animals always play a role!

Could they all have colluded to pull of some great world wide century spanning hoax? I don't think that is a rational alternative.

Paul

 

[troodon]

Okay sorry than my answer is no! I do not believe one can point to a specific set of layers and say "This is it, the flood layers" because they are in different places in different parts of the world.

That isn't the reason, otherwise creation scientists would be able to point to several formations across the world ("Well, it's the A Formation in Arizona, the Z Member of B Formation in Wyoming and the Dakotas, the C and D Formations in China, etc.) You see, geologists don't use this excuse when it comes to assigning ages to rocks. Geologists don't say "we can't identify what rocks are Permian in age because they are in different places in different parts of the world". We say this one in Arizona is Permian, this one in South Africa is Permian, etc.

 

[pshun2404]

Point made only demonstrates what I said. First off the “Permian” designation is assigned be men making assumptions that this appearance of life being extinguished is all from the same phenomena and there are higher levels called Permian, middle levels called Permian and lower levels in other places also called Permian. The alleged Permian phenomena appears in different layers in different places. Since they assume all these to have happened around the same time they assign the same date ranges to these different layers and of course this is totally based on the theory of Pangaea which actually has not been proven to be true (though it is pretty much universally accepted). Now don’t get me wrong, I accept Pangaea as being highly probable and can see how layers like the Permian could even explain a flood scenario (even if it was brought on by a huge meteor crash or some other catastrophe). But Permian layers are not the same everywhere and that was the point I was making.

So now let's apply this same logic to sedimentary layers. Most Sedimentary rock is formed when mineral matter of plants and animals settle out of receding waters. The most common materials for sedimentary rocks are fossils, formed when sediment covered dead and dying plants and animals as the sediment of receding waters over time form into rock. Sometimes the movement of earth covered by flowing magma can produce fossils in as little as a few hundred years. Some limestone is made entirely of fossils and microscopic sea life, yet can found at very high altitudes. Geologists have found conglomerate cone structures (pillars of sea salt formed by rapid agitation of water from above) high up on many of the worlds mountain ranges.

Sedimentary rock not only covers about three fourths of the Earth's land area, and most of the ocean floor. Where the earth's crust is deformed or eroded, large areas of buried sedimentary rock may be exposed. In some places, such as the mouths of rivers, the sedimentary rock can be as much as 12,000 meters thick. Wow now that must have taken a lot of receding waters don't ya' think?

Paul