Sedimentary Means Water Deposited

Further, IAC has no explanation for dinosaur tracks, termite burrow fossils, and other fossils found in the Coconino Sandstone.

With the 80 MPH turbulence of the flood waters and the alleged fast deposition of the Coconino, there should be absolutely no footprints or termite burrows of any kind!!! It is almost laughable.

In order for dino tracks to be found on the sandstone layer (which has yet another layer on top of it), the dino would have had to somehow hold his breath for a day or two (LOL) and walk around underwater on the ground below with 80 MPH water currents going against it (In fact, most tracks in the Coconino are tracks of dinos running, not walking). So the Dino would have had to have had the ability to run underwater, hold his breath for a day or two, and not be carried off by 80 MPH currents.

It's possible, I guess. :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IAC harbours many reasons to encourage the proliferation of his own ideas... they are called dollars! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL. It all comes down to $$$ in the end.

In any case, IAC has one explanation as to how the hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of water magically left the earth after the flood:

God made the water magically disappear with His immense supernatural powers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He (IAC) really is an annoying little twerp, is he not?

 

I don't think he's making much money from his pamphlets, though.

 

That's because his theory has certain errors and Special Effects insufficiencies, which my fact-based Small Earth and Comet theory correct.

I find him inspirational, especially in that I can't help but notice his pamphlets seem to be earning him a somewhat higher yearly income than I myself enjoy, despite his comparatively flawed and less Hollywood-appropriate theory.

My forthcoming screenplay, based on my eminently publishable manuscript "Small Earth, Big Rainbow - the Astronomicological Foundations of the Noachian Covenant", is still in research, and if you guys can help I would be all gratitude and complimentary footnotes.

I need, in particular, some equations with that fancy S symbol and some sines and cosines in them, to have the Scientist write on the blackboard in his study as he realizes the ice in Antarctica fell from the sky at the same time that the Pacific Ocean filled up.

 

Hey you guys, somebody ask NDS what a dino was doing in the desert, just wandering around I guess, kicking up some sand.

 

Looking for water?

 

LOL. Don't worry about it Icey. It's clearly a bit over your head.

 

Doesn't pass the smell test.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is an array of smack downs revealing how wrong IAC's lame theory is:

The Moenkopi Formation

This 230 million year old formation contains mudstones, limestones, sandstones, shales, and siltstones, and gypsum. This formation reaches thicknesses of 1,800 feet, and is comprised thousands of these alternating layers, clearly indicating a shallow, fluctuating shoreline. It is unclear how young earth creationists would fit it in their model, given the clear evidence in the middle of the flood of thousands of advances and retreats of the shoreline. It provides clear testimony against the young earth flood model.

Chinle Formation

This interesting rock layer contains shale, gypsum, limestone, sandstone, and many important minerals such as iron, magesium, and uranium ore. There are also layers of volcanic ash, and petrified wood and fossils are plentiful (this is the formation at the Petrified Forest National Park). It is about 550 feet thick. The gypsum formed from lagoon deposits. Given the worldwide flood model of young earth creation science, there should be no lagoons. Again, we have many alternating layers of sand, silt, and limestone, providing proof of an advancing and retreating shoreline, which again is inexplicable within the context of the young earth flood model. Some sources say this is the first layer with trace fossils for dinosaurs.

Moenave Formation

Early Jurassic uplift was accompanied by deposition of the Moenave Formation. The oldest beds of this formation belong to the reddish, slope-forming thin beds of siltstone interbedded with mudstone and fine sandstone of its Dinosaur Canyon Member, 140 to 375 feet thick (43 to 114 m), which was probably laid down in streams, ponds and large lakes (evidence for this is in cross-bedding of the sediments and large numbers of fish fossils).

Pale reddish-brown and 75 to 150 feet thick (23 to 46 m), the cliff-forming Springdale Sandstone is the upper member of the Moenave. It was deposited in swifter, larger, and more voluminous streams than the older Dinosaur Canyon Member. Fossils of large sturgeon-like freshwater fish have been found in the beds of the Springdale Sandstone. The next member in the Moenave Formation is the thin-bedded Whitmore Point, which is made of mudstone and shale. The lower red cliffs seen from the Zion Human History Museum (until 2000 the Zion Canyon Visitor Center) are good, easy to see examples of this formation.1

You may have noticed key words, such as streams, ponds, and large lakes, all features that should not be present on a globe full of water. Again we have interbedded siltstone, mudstone, and sandstone, indications of fluctuations in shoreline. It clearly does not fit the young earth model.

Kayenta Formation

At 200 to 600 feet thick (60 to 180 m), the Kayenta Formation's sand and silt were laid down in early Jurassic time in slower-moving, intermittent streambeds in a semiarid to tropical environment. Fossilized dinosaur footprints from sauropods have been found up the Left Fork of North Creek in this formation. Today the Kayenta is a red and mauve rocky slope-former made of sandstone, shale, and siltstone that can be seen throughout Zion Canyon.1

Here we have clear evidence of streambeds, which contradicts the young earth model. Of the greatest interest here, however, is the first trace of dinosaurs (tracks). We are now about 8,000 feet up the stratigraphic column from where the flood started (the rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, and we suddenly have sauropod dinosaurs walking around...in the middle of Noah's Flood! More on this later when we discuss the Morrison Formation.

Navajo Sandstone

Approximately 190 to 136 million years ago in the Jurassic the Colorado Plateau area's climate increasingly became arid until 150,000 square miles (388,000 km²) of western North America became a huge desert, not unlike the modern Sahara. For perhaps 10 million years sometime around 175 million years ago sand dunes accumulated, reaching their greatest thickness in the Zion Canyon area; about 2200 feet (670 meters) at the Temple of Sinawava in Zion Canyon.

Most of the sand, made of 98% translucent, rounded-grain quartz, was transported from coastal sand dunes to the west (what is now central Nevada). Today the Navajo Sandstone is a geographically widespread pale tan to red cliff and monolith former with very obvious sand dune cross-bedding patterns. Typically the lower part of this remarkably homogeneous formation is reddish from iron oxide that percolated from the overlaying iron-rich Temple Cap formation while the upper part of the formation is a pale tan to nearly white color. The other component of the Navajo's weak cement matrix is calcium carbonate, but the resulting sandstone is friable (crumbles easily) and very porous. Cross-bedding is especially evident in the eastern part of the park where Jurassic wind directions changed often. The crosshatched appearance of Checkerboard Mesa is a good example.1

The Navajo is one of my favorite sandstones. Since it is desert in origin, and their could not possibly be a wind-blown desert in the middle of Noah's Flood, it provides solid evidence against the young earth global flood model.

You may recall the Coconino Sandstone, from the Grand Canyon. It is another desert sandstone, one which young earth creationists have argued was deposited underwater. The main young earth Grand Canyon book, which is called Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, argues for this underwater deposition of the Coconino. On page 32 of this book, they claim it was deposited not in a dry, desert environment, but in a water environment. Figure 3.10 shows a plot of grain sizes for the Coconino, two modern water environments, and a "Desert Sand Dune." Through this plot, it is shown that the desert dune plots out to a straight line, whereas the Coconino, and the water environment sands, plot out as jagged, irregular lines. This is used as proof that the Coconino is not a desert sandstone.

The amazing thing is the source of the "Desert Sand Dune" grain size plots. The first paragraph in the right column, first sentence, gives the source as footnote number 44. If you turn to this footnote, the source of the desert sand grain size plot is "Stratigraphic Analysis of the Navajo Sandstone," published in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology! That's right! The young earth creation scientists are using the desert-created Navajo Sandstone to argue against the Coconino as being desert in origin. In doing so, they admitted the Navajo was a desert-formed sandstone, which invalidates their flood model by itself.

Temple Cap Formation (Middle Jurassic)

In early Mid Jurassic time streams loaded with iron-oxide-rich mud flooded and partially leveled the sand dunes, creating the Temple Cap Formation. Thin beds of clay and silt mark the end of this formation as desert conditions briefly returned to the area. The most prominent outcrops of this formation make up the capstones of East Temple and West Temple in Zion Canyon. Rain dissolves some of the iron oxide and thus streaks Zion's cliffs red (the red streak seen on the Alter of Sacrifice is a famous example). Temple Cap iron oxide is also the source of the red-orange color of much the lower half of the Navajo Formation.1

Once again, we have terrestrial streams and desert sand dunes, clear evidence against Noah's Flood.

In case you may be thinking that the flood should be over now, and these were deposited after the flood...all the mammal fossils, and almost all the dinosaur fossils are located above this rock layer, thus negating this as the endpoint of the flood.

Carmel Formation

Warm, shallow sea started to advance into the region (transgress) 150 million years ago, finishing the job of flattening the sand dunes. Sedimentation beds one to four feet thick (30 to 120 cm) of limy ooze with some sand and fossils occurred from Mid to Late Triassic time. Some calcareous silt peculated down into the buried sand dunes (carrying red oxides with it) and eventually cemented them into the sandstone of the Navajo Formation. The limy ooze above would later lithify into the hard and compact limestone of the Carmel Formation, 200 to 300 feet thick (60 to 90 m), which is notably exposed on Horse Ranch Mountain in the Kolob Canyons section of the park and near Mt. Carmel Junction east of the park.1

Unconformity

A gap in the geologic record, an unconformity, follows the Carmel Limestone. Other formations totaling 2,800 feet (850 m) thick may have been deposited in the region during Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous only to be uplifted and entirely removed by erosion.1

Dakota Formation

This formation consists of a basal conglomerate and fossil-rich sandstone and was laid down during the Cretaceous period. Although this is the top layer of rock at Zion National Park, the story does not end there. As you go north, other layers come into play, the most important one being the Morrison Formation, which is actually under (older) than the Dakota.

Conclusion

In this section, we have witnessed many rock layers with clear evidence of repeatedly advancing and retreating shorelines, terrestrial streams, and even a desert formed sandstone. According to the young earth creation science model for the flood, we should have one big ball of water, with no landforms exposed. Clearly the young earth model cannot answer these problems.

http://www.answersincreation.org/stratigraphy3.htm

 

Those layers are lying comformably and grading into each other, obviously a sedimentary event, thanks for the drawing.

 

I think we should all pay close attention to IceAgedCivilization's every word and his expert opinions.
We can all use a little "specialized" enlightenment from one of the most special minds I, personally, have come across in decades.

His every brief, yet wise, sentence is full...full...of that stuff that makes things, like plants and vegetables, grow healthy and strong.

I, for one, am mezmerized by his every comment and am put into a state of catatonic bliss whenever I come across one of his many intelligent and well thought out opinions.

If I had known that one book was sufficient for me to uncover the deepest mysteries of existence and the universe I would have nevere wasted all my money on all those ...Comic books.

 

So you interpreted the distinct layers as gradations? Interesting.

 

There is no evidence that those layers were not laid down continuously.

 

"Egyptian Royal Syngameon," pretty funny goat.

 

:roflmao: Hmmm, must look that term up in my Bumper Book of Crossword Clues... not one I've heard of before. Do you per chance mean "Fluvial Event"? Because it's equally obviously NOT!

Just to clarify fluvial AND aeolian deposits are both classified as "sedimentary", whilst forming under completely different regimes.

As for the grading... what do you want a big frickin signpost saying "You are now leaving fluvial and entering aeolian deposits"!? :crazy: It's the SUM of the EVIDENCE which leads to the most likely interpretation of a palaeo-environment.

 

If that drawing is correct, it is more than enough evidence to show they were not layed down continuously.

From what I have read, carbon dating shows some continguous layers to differ in age between them by millions of years.

 

Carbon 14 dates only in the thousands of years.

 

There is no evidence that they were laid down continuously.

Fortunately, there is an abundance of evidence that they were laid down over millions of years. If you would have actually read my post instead of merely looking at the picture, you would have realized this.

Is it that you can't read, IAC, or is it just that you don't want to accept the facts of reality?

600 years ago, this would be a conversation between me and you:

IAC: The sun and the rest of the stars are clearly orbiting around the earth, therefore the earth is at the center of the universe.

NDS: IAC, the earth is not at the center of the universe. The earth is merely spinning on its axis and orbiting around the sun. You are simply trying to make up facts to back up your idea of the Bible.

IAC: Your in a little over your head there, NDS. Hang in there buddy.

NDS: Seriously, IAC, you need to get out of your fantasy land and accept the facts of reality.

IAC: You can't prove that the sun doesn't orbit around the earth.

NDS: Yes I can. There is an abundance of evidence proving just that. For example, Newton has come up with mathematical Laws of Motion and now can predict the appearence of planets in the sky since all of them are orbiting at a certain speed from the gravity of the sun.

IAC: Newton's measurements are inaccurate. Plus, the majority of the general public believes that Heliocentricism is wrong.

NDS: First off, most people do accept the Heliocentric Theory. If they don't, it's because they aren't well educated on the subject. If they were, they would know the truth. Also, the vast majority of scientists have accepted the Heliocentric Theory as fact.

IAC: Look outside your window during the day. The sun travels around the earth from sunrise to sunset.

NDS: Again, that is because the earth is spinning on its axis. Don't worry, in the future technology will develop to a point where the Heliocentric theory will be proven beyond a doubt.