Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[_ Old Earth _] Which strata were laid down by the deluge?
- Thread starter jwu
- Start date
That means that if the entire geologic column supposedly was laid down by the noachian flood, then all these strata must have been wet when they formed, as they formed underwater.
This then means that evidence of these strata not having been wet or submerged in water when they formed would pose a problem for the idea that the noachian flood is responsible for these strata.
Do you agree that there is a bunch of features which should not be found in strata which were laid down by a deluge? That is, things like drought cracks, fossilized footsteps, fossilized riverbeds and so on? These all indicate that the respective stratum was exposed to air when it formed.
This then means that evidence of these strata not having been wet or submerged in water when they formed would pose a problem for the idea that the noachian flood is responsible for these strata.
Do you agree that there is a bunch of features which should not be found in strata which were laid down by a deluge? That is, things like drought cracks, fossilized footsteps, fossilized riverbeds and so on? These all indicate that the respective stratum was exposed to air when it formed.
well maybe not the entire strata was placed down by the flood, i mean look at Mnt Helans , it blew up and laid down sediment in layers , witch buried trees, , animals and i am not sure but if there was a river there, but it would have been buried that as well same as foot prints.
drought cracks, could form when the sediment dried and became solid rock, and as the water left the sediment it contracted and cracked, also earth quakes and such could crack it.
My 2 cents.
drought cracks, could form when the sediment dried and became solid rock, and as the water left the sediment it contracted and cracked, also earth quakes and such could crack it.
My 2 cents.
The strata laid down by Mt St Helens are very different from the others though; geologists can easily distinguish them from other strata.johnmuise said:
Let me rephrase it in regards to the riverbeds:
If the flood is responsible for strata of 100 meters depth, then we shouldn't see the remains of a river that apparently did flow there at a depth of 50 meters, as that river would have to have formed at a time when the area generally was covered with water. Under such conditions, there are no rivers - the presence of a river implies dry ground around it.
Do you agree that such fossilized rivers should not be found in the middle of the flood strata? Below or above it they would be ok (having formed before or after the flood), but not in the middle.
True, but drought cracks that formed when the respective stratum was exposed to the surface have a distinctive look:
And of course, fossilized footsteps very strongly imply exposition to the surface or very shallow water at most, don't they?
No possible way it could have been a river after the flood cutting through the already hard strata and the sediment on top is just delta ?
Since these discoveries seem to be little in comparison to the rest of the strata.
True, but a gain deltas could explain that.
True once more, but things in the right conditions can fossilize very very quickly, and not all footprints would fossilize but a select few and those few could easy be covered by delta.
A good example of great amount of delta would be the grand canyon, that is a spillway, the 2 lakes grand/hopi did that when they overflowed, that would be A LOT of delta, adding to the already vast amount of strata, hence burying any already fossilized foot prints/river beds/drought cracks in the area among other things. there are many canyons in the world that probably happened just like the grand canyon scenario messing up the Geo time scale even more.
No, as this would leave traces on the strata above the riverbed. It would be a deep canyon filled by new sediments then, not a fossilized riverbed that is covered by uniform strata.
How can a delta explain drought cracks? Please elaborate on this. IMHO, whether by delta or any other mechanism, drought cracks imply exposure to the surface and dryness; neither is compatible with the flood.
Actually the preservation of such imprints is a very different process than the fosslization of formerly living beings; it's cementation as opposted to mineralization.
Either way, in order to footprints to form there need to be live land animals. By a certain time, these should all have been dead according to the flood record, and the water to deep to leave any footprints if you're still swimming.
Actually, as far as i know, the formation of the grand canyon is well understood and studied in detail by conventional geologists. If there are some special things which you think they did not consider, then please bring them up. I'll gladly discuss them.
i mean the drought cracks happened, then were covered by sediment by delta.
Yes hydrological sorting (or whatever its called) would leave uniform strata.
everything i am saying when it comes to river deposited sediments refers to after the flood, there would be animals after the flood. (Noah had a fair amount on his dingy) to leave foot prints and then cementation would occur in some spots then get buried by delta.
kent hovind tape 4 "lies in the textbooks" has a fair amount of talk on the grand canyon and gives evidence as to why, if you have not seen it ask and i will cite what he said.
That'd not be part of the deluge though.
It would still be distinguishable from the older strata into which the river was cut. And, of course, this violates your premise of the river having formed after the deluge, as there wouldn't even be an opportunity for any hydrological sorting to occur then by that time.
Your own words:
[emphasis mine]
Please define what you mean by "delta", your usage of the term is unusual. A river delta?
However, this then means that any strata which contains footprints of alive animals then should not have formed during the flood, doesn't it? Or, at least the footprints should only be at the very top of the flood sediments, not right in their middle...agreed?
I have seen it, but i'll leave it to you to pick the first point to discuss...please choose one and perhaps a few sentences about it for the other readers would be nice.
sediments layed down by river, if i am using the wrong term let me know.
i never heard of any discovery's you got a link ?
if they find footprints in a rock layer, and the rock layers are supposed to be millions of years old, do you suppose it would rain and there would be wind and such, don't you think the footprints would disappear or be so weathered to not be distinguishable ?
if the Colorado river cut the grand canyon, where is the delta for it ?
the grand canyon has a ridge in the middle, water does not flow up hill.
You got it right...i was somewhat irrited by "covered by delta" - it was either missing an "a" or it implied that "delta" is understood as some sort of process, not a geological formation. So i thought that i'd better make sure that we both use the same terminology.
This is a good place to start:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
From this link:
The same should have happened if they were only thousands of years old though. But there are many mechanisms which can preserve them; e.g. the footprints being made in mud, then this mud hardens during a few dry weeks, and then is covered e.g. by a sand dune. This leaves the imprints in the mud distinguishable from the overlying sand and protects them from further erosion.
The colorado river delta:
That's right of course, but conventional geology does understand this process pretty well.
The colorado river actually is older than this rift. The rift formed by uplifting (a common geological process), and the already in place colorado river cut into the very slowly uplifting ground like a band saw in wood that is being pushed into it.
What is the creationists' side explanation for this geological detail? It runs into the same question, doesn't it?
the 2 lakes near grand canyon drained and carved the grand canyon, in the still soft rock, and hence the grand canyon is just a washed out spillway . its plausible, just not accepted because it would mean the geologists were wrong and people don't like to look bad, especially in scientific fields.
That still would require the water to flow uphill though, if the rift is older than the river. Why would the water take this course?
This line of reasoning may seem intuitive, but a closer look falsifies it.
First off, take a look at these near vertical walls of the grand canyon:
Had the rock been soft when the GC formed, they would have collapsed under their own weight.
Another problem is the course that the water took:
Meandering flows like this are evidence that it took a very long time to cut the canyon, as the mechanisms which form such meanders require this. A cataclysmic spillway is more....linear.
Finally, the geologic composition of the GC is incompatible with the whole notion of it being cut into soft rock - it doesn't exclusively consist of sedimentary rocks, and not all sedimentary rocks exist in a soft form either:
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oco ... column.jpg
E.g. limestone - a sedimentary rock which consists of the shells of microorganisms. That stuff doesn't exist in soft form, and it takes very very long to form. You also see basalt, quartzite and granite on that chart, igneous and metamorphic rock formations. These are very hard types of rocks and don't exist in a soft variant. It takes very long for water to cut through this type of rock.
Overthrowing existing theories is the best way to get rich and famous, in geology as in any other field of science. There is no reason why a geologist hold back on such information if he has good evidence.
A large amount of water would have broken the wall between the meanders though, it had to form slowly.
A sand box is not comparable with massive granite, limestone and basalt.
The easiest route is not over a rift - unless you propose that it formed just the way that conventional geology says.
A sand box is not comparable with massive granite, limestone and basalt.
The easiest route is not over a rift - unless you propose that it formed just the way that conventional geology says.
jwu said:
not nessiarily , maybe the lakes di not overflow till years later, after the rock soilifyed, the ridge could have been just harder rock for whatever reason..or maybe the lakes overflowed the ridge was creted later either could be true.
a sand box is a lowsy example but wheter is be loose sand and a little bit of water or rock and alot of water the concept still remians.
water can erode rock really quickly