Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by IceAgeCivilizations, Mar 24, 2007.
Here and there, and eventually, into the then deepening ocean basins at the close of the Deluge.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Why did they deepen?
The new oceanic crust sections (basalt lava from through the midoceanic rift zones) cooled and so became more dense, so that new oceanic crust sank down on the mantle.
Things IAC has no response to:
1) How did the water recede?
2) The Moenkopi Formation Problem
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.
3) The Chinle Formation Problem
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.
4) 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.
5) 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.
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!
6) The Temple Cap Formation Problem
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.
7) The Post-Flood Dinosaur/Carnivore Problem
Let’s talk about a post-ark environment. Assuming that there were two juvenile T-rex’s on the ark, and at least one raptor species, what would they eat? The flood has killed all plant life, since it was buried by the multiple layers of rocks. Seeds would take years to repopulate the earth’s plant life. So these dinosaurs would come out, and probably kill off everything else as food within the first three months. We would have no cattle, no mammals, probably no man! All because of four dinosaurs! The supposed “ice age” would not come quickly enough to save mankind.
8) The Dinosaur Fossil Problem
Next, the authors move toward the claim that all but a few dinosaurs died in the worldwide flood of Noah. The author even goes so far to say that there was a “lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping.” Let’s look at this closer. According to young-earth creation theory, the fossil-bearing rock layers of the world were laid down in the flood of Noah. According to the best young-earth model, the rocks that geologists call “Mesozoic” in age were deposited by the receding waters of the flood1. As it rained for 40 days, then the waters stayed on the planet for 150 more, and then started receding, these rocks were deposited at least 190 days into the flood.
The problem is…these rocks contain all the dinosaur fossils. Even worse, all fossil mammals are above these layers! They must have escaped the flood, only to be killed by the receding waters. And, they were even mating, eating, pooping, and walking around, right in the middle of the flood. So we know for certain that dinosaurs were not killed by Noah’s flood.
9) The Dino Poop Problem
It is important to note that all of the fossilized dinosaur poop is found in Mesozoic rocks. According to Steven Austin and the young-earth proponents, these rocks were deposited in the receding phase of the flood, therefore to have dinosaurs pooping in these rocks, when they were clearly dead by the end of the 40 days of rain, is not possible.
10) The Dino Trackway Problem
With poop, we have indirect evidence of dinosaurs which were eating and eliminating food in the middle of the flood. Let’s move on to more direct evidence of living dinosaurs. To further complicate the issue for the young-earth model, the fossil record is full of the footprints of animals. Locations that have many of these prints are called trackways.
For example, let’s look at the Morrison Formation in Wyoming, which has yielded hundreds of skeletons of Apatosaurus. The Morrison contains many footprints of these magnificent beasts. However, if you believe the young-earth Flood model, these could not exist! How can animals that are dead be making footprints in rocks which are hundreds of feet underwater? It’s not possible.
To re-emphasize again, the dinosaur layers, including the Morrison, are Mesozoic in age, and, if you believe the young earth flood model, they were deposited after the animals on earth were killed, during the receding water phase of the Flood. It is not possible to have walking dinosaurs when the entire planet is under water! How could we have footprints from animals that should already be dead from the first 40 days of the flood?
Again, it is clear that the young earth model for Noah’s flood cannot explain why there are signs of living dinosaurs during the latter stages of the flood. However, there is more evidence awaiting us.
11) The Mass Graves Problem
Many young earth theorists point to the mass dinosaur graves as evidence of catastrophic death and burial during the Flood. There is one critical piece of information that the young earth creationism overlooks in using these as evidence of a young earth.
Young earth proponents are eager to point to mass graves as proving that a great flood killed these dinosaurs, however, they fail to consider that there are other dinosaur fossils above and below the rock layers at these gravesites. If the flood killed them, then they would all be located in the same rock layer. In fact, we should see fossils of Tyrannosaurus Rex right alongside the fossils of Apatosaurus. However, we don’t see this jumbled mix of species in these graves. The mass graves that have been found contain one type of dinosaur, such as the graves of hadrosaurs found in the western United States. If the young earth model were true, we would have one layer of dinosaur fossils, with all the species mixed together.
The fact that these graves contain single species supports the old-earth theory. Why? Think for a minute about the T-Rex and Apatosaurus. According to young-earth theory, they should be found together as a result of the flood…but they are not. Why not? Because they didn’t live at the same time! The Apatosaurus lived in the late Jurassic period, about 150 million years ago. The T-rex is a more recent dinosaur species, all living around 67 million years ago. The two species never interacted, never shared the same piece of real estate.
As you can see, the mass graveyards offer no evidence to support a young earth, and no support for the dinosaur’s end by the flood of Noah.
12) The Teeth Problem
Finally, one piece of evidence often overlooked at mass gravesites is the teeth marks. Many of these bones show chew marks from carnivorous dinosaurs, as they fed on the carcasses of the dead animals. In several cases, right alongside the large teeth marks are small ones from the juvenile dinosaurs of the same species.
Dinosaur teeth are continually reproduced. As they break off during feeding, a new one is grown right underneath the older tooth. At these feeding sites, we have both adult and juvenile teeth that have been shed during the eating of these carcasses.
The young earth model fails to explain the existence of these teeth marks, and the shed teeth at these sites. It is obvious that carnivorous dinosaurs, both adult and juvenile, were feeding on the carcasses in these graveyards. So one must ask…why did the meat-eaters not die also during the initial flood event? How could they be alive, and eating at these all-you-can-eat dinosaur buffets, when according to the young-earth model they were dead also?
Clearly, the young-earth model cannot account for this evidence of feeding dinosaurs during the receding portion of the flood of Noah. The only way to explain it from a young earth creation science model is the following proposal…
…the plant eaters were killed by the flood. However, the carnivorous dinosaurs, who were adept at swimming in great currents of water, survived much longer. As they swam around, they dived down, persevering through the 150 mile per hour water currents, and reached bottom, where the bodies of the plant eaters were. They feasted, old and young alike, until their breath could not hold out, and then surfaced for air.
You can see how ridiculous this proposal is. However, if you want a young earth, this is what you have to believe.
13) Since the Coconino Sandstone's cross-bedding is 25°, they are obviously wind-deposited. They fall within the average for eolian cross beds (25°-28°), but are far from the angle expected for water-deposited cross-beds (less than 10°).
There are obviously many more problems with the Young Earth Theory that IAC has not, and can not, confront.
IAC, I would suggest answering in this format:
1) Response 1.
2) Response 2.
The animals left foot prints in sediments which were then covered by relatively quiescent sedimentation, obviously.
And your gasser of a source doesn't even know what the Bible says in order to try to refute, so tell your gasser source to get with the program, and where is that geologist you said wanted to debate?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Are you saying that the Earth shrunk and thats why the oceans got deeper.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Seeing that you clearly aren't able to respond to these arguments, it is clear that your theory is bogus and you should give all the misled purchasers of your books their money back.
Argument No. 7 is the most interesting one to me.
That's not what I'm saying "Blindman," go read again.
Clearly, Not Doing Science, your sources are ignorant sources, so what good is that?
You realize that the sediments you're talking about begin 8,000 feet up from the first sediments, right?
And you realize that these sediments were, according to you, laid down well over 70 days into the flood during the recession phase, right?
Meaning, either dead dinos who could breathe underwater for days for walking, mating, shitting, etc. during the middle of the flood, or your theory is full of shit.
Go read the Genesis account of the Deluge, you still don't have a clue what it says.
LOL. Why are they ignorant, because you said so?
Here is the main source of all that data:
Degree: B. S. Geology, Memphis State University
(Outstanding Senior Graduate in Geology)
Some Graduate Work (M.A. in Religion), Liberty University
His area of concentration within his college degree (B. S. Geology) is in soft rock geology (sedimentary).
I don't have to read the Genesis account, because this guy already has. He has studied it thoroughly and has produced the arguments against your theory I posted above (which you have no response to).
By the way, Greg Neyman is an advent believer in God, however he is smart enough not to take every word of the Old Testament literally.
Well now then bring him on down!
In any case.....
MMMmmmmmm, those plant eaters and other small creatures on the ark and post ark must have been a nice meal for the raptors and T-Rex's. I mean, the carnivores had to eat something, right? LOL!!!
We don't have to. His arguments have been posted above.
You have no response to his arguments, therefore your theory is wrong. I know that concept of "accepting error in judgment" is a bit over your head, though. So I understand your pain.
Ahhhhhhh, the sounds of victory. :bravo:
I have responded to all his arguments directly or indirectly, so bring the ol' boy in, and let's see what he's got in a debate format, I so hope you can bring him up.
I think we have communication gap Not Doing Science.
Naaaa. It's just that it's hard to communicate via forum when one side of the communication chooses not to read your posts and chooses to limit himself to one sentence a post (due to laziness and lack of a response).
I know, Icey. This is your way of saying "YOU WIN, I LOSE." Because everyone here knows that by simply browsing through past pages, you haven't responded to ANY OF THE ARGUMENTS.
How are you going to fare against Neyman if you can't even pose a challenge to me?
Separate names with a comma.