After reading through the books, and seeing all the neatly drawn textbook diagrams. I believe it is time that we take a look at what the evidence really shows concerning the geological time column. This is a massive research of where the majority of all dinosaur and mammal fossils are found all throughout the world. This research should finally unravel the supposed existance of the geological time column.

Also with the research being done, it may also map out what the world was like before the flood, and the actual placement of all the existing species at the time. This research will also reveal the massive evidence of a global flood, all the while exposing the geological time column for what it truly is.

So lets take a look at all the fossil sites that show a lack of the geological time column.

Starting in North America, and moving from there.

Judith River Group/ Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada
Dinosaur National Monument, Utah
Hell Creek, Montana
Dinosaur Trackways of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado
Williston Basin, western North Dakota/ Saskatchewan
Powder River Basin, eastern Montana
Wasatch Plateau, central Utah
Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado
Denver Basin, Colorado
San Juan Basin, New Mexico
Big Bend, Texas
Great Basin, California
Powder River Basin, Montana
Crazy Mountain Basin, Montana
Clark's Fork Basin, Montana/ Wyoming
Bighorn Basin, Wyoming
Purdy Basin, Wyoming
Wind River Basin, Wyoming
Hoback Basin, Wyoming
Green River Basin, Wyoming
Fossil Basin, Wyoming
Bison Basin, Wyoming
Washakie Basin, Wyoming
Carbon Basin, Wyoming
Alberta Syncline

South America

Jujuy Province, Argentina
Rio Loro, Tucuman Province, Argentina
Chubut Province, Argentina
Ischigualasto Formation, Argentina
La Armarga Formation, Argentina
Lohan Cura Formation, Argentina
Los Colorados Formation, Argentina
Malargue Group, Argentina
Neuquen Group, Argentina
Santa Maria Formation, Argentina/Brazil
South of Bogota City, Columbia
Laguna Umayo, Peru
Chulpas, Peru
Tiupampa, Bolivia
Santana Formation, Brazil

Europe

Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany
Paris Basin, France
Tremp Graus Basin, Spain
Unidade Amoreira- Porta Novo, Portugal
Wealden Group, Britain
Solnhofen limestone, Germany
Middle Stubebsandstein, Germany
Oxford Clay, Britain
Purbeck Beds, Britain
Sanpetru Formation, Romania
Kimmeridge Clay, Britain
Lower Lias, Britain
Holzmaden, Germany
Las Hoyas, Spain
Udurchukan Formation, Russia

Australia

Winton Formation
Wonthaggi Formation

Asia

Zhylga, Kazakhstan
Ulan-Nur Basin, Mongolia
Nemegt Basin, Mongolia
Bugin-Tsav Basin, Mongolia
Lower Lufeng Series, China
Iren Dabasu Formation, China
Jiufotang Formation, China
Khukhtek Formation, Mongolia
Kitadani Formation, Japan
Kota Formation, India
Lameta Formation, India
Sao Khua Formation, Thailand
Shishugou Formation, China
Tuchengzi Formation, China
Tugulu Group, China
Ulansuhai Formation, China
Wucaiwan Formation, China
Xinminbao Group, China
Yixian Formation, China
Liaoning, China
Zigong Dinosaur Park, Szechuan, China

Africa

Quarzazate Basin, Morocco
Karoo Basin, South Africa
Tegana Formation, North Africa


These are just a few fossil sites from around the world that fail the geological time column test. Now if it could be proven that these sites overlap each other and somehow create some sort of order, then maybe, just maybe the geological time column exist, but alas conclusive evidence is needed.

Global Flood evidence is quite easy to recognize, just take a look at the Karoo Basin where over 800 billion vertebrae animals DIED at once.

New Egg Mountain in Montana is also another great example, where 10,000 to 20,000 dinosaurs died simultaneously in a 2 mile area, or Sioux County Nebraska where 100 bones to the square foot are found in the area. Also look to the Islands of the Mediterranean where fissures of thousands of bones are crammed together.

Mount Etna has 2 caves CRAMMED with the bones of thousands of hippopatamus... Strange, hippopatamus on mountains... definetly undeniable flood catastrophe evidence.

Montceau fossils of forest have found about 7000 slabs and 100,000 nodules in excellent condition, along with fossilized spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects and reptiles, but the absolute most amazing part about this is the flood evidence it contains. Which is fossilized water ripples marks, and raindrops found on the site which also adds up to more evidence for a Global Flood.

Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta is also another great example of global flood evidence where 1 bone bed lie the remains of thousands of relatives to the centrosaurus!

This type of Flood evidence is not suprising at the least, seeing as how thousands of dinosaurs are usually found fossilized together in the majority of all fossil sites across the world. China has its share of mass graves. In all actuality most the dinosaur fossil sites today are truly mass graves anyways. These fossil sites also provide little to no evidence of a geological time column.

Evolutionist like to claim that the geological time column is fragmentary, but when the geological time column appears to be fragmentary almost 100% of the time, something is particulary fishy.

Great thread idea scott and what a thread it will likely be.
Lets start out with a cross section of the grand canyon....All threads are worthless without pics.hehehe.



Key

6 - Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap, and Kaibab
6d - Kaibab Limestone
6c - Toroweap Formation
6b - Coconino Sandstone
6a - Hermit Shale
5 - Supai Group
5d - Esplanade Formation
5c - Wescogame Formation
5b - Manakacha Formation
5a - Watahomigi Formation
4 - Temple Butte, Redwall, and Surprise Canyon
4c - Surprise Canyon Formation
4b - Redwall Limestone
4a - Temple Butte Limestone
3 - Tonto Group
3c - Muav Limestone
3b - Bright Angel Shale
3a - Tapeats Sandstone
2 - Grand Canyon Supergroup
1 - Vishnu Group
1b - Zoroaster Granite
1a - Vishnu Schist

I'll get the geologic era's on it later on,if i remember the top layers are the permian.

Yes!!!! Pictures are awesome! I just think it's quite strange that permian layers are on top, and nothing but a desert for miles. Amazing, hundreds of millions of years are.... MISSING>>>as expected.

Thats not even the good part,consider this;

Temple Butte, Redwall, and Surprise Canyon
The next two periods of geologic history, the Ordovician and the Silurian, are missing from the Grand Canyon geologic sequence. Geologists do not know if sediments were deposited in these periods and were later removed by erosion or if they were never deposited in the first place. Either way, this break in the geologic history of the area marks an unconformity of about 165 million years.

(See 4 on map legend)

Those layers are just stacked perfectly on top of each other with no evidence of erosion,but instead of making a scientific assessment based on the evidence they let their world veiw tell them they must have eroded away.

So, how do you suggest that the Grand Canyon was created?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon#Geography

First, at least 6,000 ft of sediments had to be deposited in a neatly layered fashion.

Then they had to solidify to form rocks.

Finally, a river had to dig a 6,000 ft deep, 277miles long, and up to 18 miles wide gorge into the formation.

Can you provide a plausible theory of how this formation could have been created, in 6,000 years, and as a result of a flood event?

Hans

The majority of the Grand Canyon may not even be sedimental layers, seeing as how it is the top layers that contain the fossils. The Grand Canyon is what should be expected after a large receeding amount of water cuts through soft sediment. Now the flood itself may have been around 30,000 feet deep given that is around the height of the tallest mountain. Also the extreme height of the water should not affect the oxygen level in the atomosphere because the water being equal around the world would press all the oxygen and the ozone layer outward.

The formation itself would not have taken 6000 years to produce, it most likely only took a few weeks or months for the waters to cut through all the soft sediment.

Hi Hans,
The bible says after the flood "The mountains rose up and the valleys sank down".

That would mean massive volcanoe and tectonic activity had to happen.If so,pyroplacstic flows with massive amounts of co2 would have poured into the oceans forming carbonic acid,which would cause calcium to percipitate out of solution and form massive limestone formations all over the world.

Why are these formations not being formed on that massive of a distribution in the present?Why do none of these formations have the thousands of volcanic ash layers that would have to be there in a uniformatairian model,not even any marine growth layers.

Just look at 4a and 4c on the map.Those are river channels that were suddenly covered by limestone,otherwise those channels would have cut slowly and gradually through the entire layer.

The tapeats sandstone (3a on the map) shows massive erosion below it,which is called the great unconformity.It can be found almost anywhere in the world.Flood geologist or uniformitairian alike have to agree most or all land on earth was flooded at that time.

Sounds like willing ignorance to me.

Thanks.

http://vimeo.com/811225

Heres a video from Paul Garner that gives the best evidence for a global flood in the grand canyon.Note that he argues because of the evidence and not despite it.

Enjoy.

Sorry, but ALL of the layers are evidently sedimentary. They consist of particles of varius types of rock (also called sand and gravel), fused together by chemical deposits. And, of course, even without a microscope, they are evidently layered.

There is absolutely no getting around the fact that the Grand Canyon formation displays a layer of sediments at least 6,000 ft thick.



I'm afraid not. The GC is predominatly V-shaped in profile. A large amount of water cutting into soft sediment will create a U-shaped profile.




Unfortunately, enough water exists on the planet to form a layer that thick.



Ehr, yes, that would be correct. But irrelevant for the formation of the GC.



Again, the profile is wrong for that scenario, plus you miss something: Where did all that sediment come from? The Colerado Plateau is the size of Arizona, and over a mile thick, that is well over 120,000 cubic miles of sediment. Where did all that sediment come from?

Hans

Unfortunatly, the sediment rocks of the GC show nothing of that chemistry. Also, your physics are wrong: Long before CO2 releases would affect the acidity of the oceans to any appreciable extent, a run-away greenhouse effect would make the oceans boil.

Finally, you are now depicting a very violent event with global volcanic eruptions, giant earthquakes with the resultant enormous tsunamis, plus the whole chemistry of the pklanet being upturned. .... And you want me to believe that a handful of people, with no seaman experience whatsoever, managed to survive that turmoil in a flimsy, overloaded wooden boat, with no means of propulsion or steering?

(I'll address your other questions, later)

Hans

Now for the rest of your questions.



I don't understand that question.



Why should they necessarily have layers of volcanic ash? Very few volcanic eruptions have left perceptible ash layers globally. There is very little volcanic activity in that area; in fact, the Colorado Plateau is noted for its exceptional geological stability. Even this column is, as noted elsewhere, not continuous, so any volcanic layers might have been lost.

Note that I'm simply taking your statement at face value, here. I have not investigated if the Colorado Plateau column really does not contain any volcanic sediments.



Suddenly? Why suddenly? But rivers are know to sometimes change their path. It can be suddenly, if the river breaks through some barrier and finds a new bed; then the old bed downstream of the break will dry out and may then be covered with sediment at a later time.



All that shows is that the area was exposed during some era. I don't know what uniformitatians are, but I have not heard of any consensus (outside creationist circles) of ant evidence of a contemporary global flood. (Again, the planet simply does not contain enough water for a global flood.)

Hans

U shaped versus v shaped profile absolutely does not matter, because Hans you need to look at what floods really create. Because I have seen FIRST HAND floods creating v shapes in soft sediment, so yes you are most definetly incorrect. Also its a great thing that the grand canyon is almost entirely sedimental, meaning 100% of it was carried there by water, and any denying this is willful ignorance on the grandest of scales.

Where did all the sediment come from? What? You know exactly where it came from, other areas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't play around like you do NOT know, because it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS thats what happened.

6,000 feet thick is mere matchsticks for a Global Flood, which you seem to not understand. Also you ask where did all the water come from, well seeing as how the majority of the earth is covered with water, and has thousands of underground places that can and do carry water I have no problem seeing where the water came from and went to. Especially from the hands of an angry God.

Evidence for a geological time column within the grand canyon still doesn't exist, because quite simply there is no evidence of a geological time column. You need to look at what the evidence really shows Hans, because in all reality the geological time column does not exist. The evidence for a global flood is overwhelming. The evidence for a geological time column, is again non existant.

I'm not missing anything Hans, sediment had to be laid down period. The massive amounts of fossils and sediments worldwide show evidence of an extremely large global flood, and you will be hard pressed to NOT find Flood Evidence, because it exist at EVERY fossil and sediment layer across the entire WORLD.

Have you EVER been to any fossil sites? All are covered with sediment, nowhere on planet earth does the geological time column exist and you will be hard pressed to find ANY evidence for it.

Quote;Unfortunatly, the sediment rocks of the GC show nothing of that chemistry. Also, your physics are wrong: Long before CO2 releases would affect the acidity of the oceans to any appreciable extent, a run-away greenhouse effect would make the oceans boil.

Where do you think limestone percipitates come from?The red wall limestones are thousands of feet thick.Co2 is heavier than air and would blanket the ground and oceans,not disperse into the atmosphere.

Quote;I don't understand that question

An aithiest Derek Ager does and if he can see when geologist are being brainwashed by uniformatairians,do you think we cant?

Quote;Why should they necessarily have layers of volcanic ash?

Because if the limestones were millions of years old they should have thousands of volcanic ash layers,plain and simple.Volcanoes eject ash thousands of feet into the atmosphere where wind carries it and deposits it all over the world.We got some ash deposited here in Arkansas from Mt. St. Helens in 1981.

Quote;(Again, the planet simply does not contain enough water for a global flood.)

The oceans are 7 miles deep in some places.Before the mountains rose up after the flood,there would have been more than enough water to flood the entire surface.The ironic thing is,scientist claim to see evidence of a massive flood on mars,that does'nt have any water on its surface.

Quote;U shaped versus v shaped profile absolutely does not matter, because Hans you need to look at what floods really create. Because I have seen FIRST HAND floods creating v shapes in soft sediment, so yes you are most definetly incorrect. Also its a great thing that the grand canyon is almost entirely sedimental, meaning 100% of it was carried there by water, and any denying this is willful ignorance on the grandest of scales.

Scott,look at the cross section i posted.The top half is u-shaped,only the bottom is v-shaped.

Jason, thats a very good point, u shaped on top, and v shaped on bottom. Looks to me the top was carved when it was still moist, and the bottom was rock hard, but it was still carved through. The only reason the bottom did not produce a u shape, was most likely because the sediment on the bottom was also the hardest of the sediment layers.

This is amazing though, the more you look at the Grand Canyon, the more it shows characteristics of a flood, or shall I say a Global Flood.

Quote;The only reason the bottom did not produce a u shape, was most likely because the sediment on the bottom was also the hardest of the sediment layers.

Thats what i would suggest.The precambrian is pre-flood rock so it was solid from creation day,all the layers above it being flood and post-flood rocks.

I looked at satellite maps of the grand canyon many months ago and i noticed the huge and wide u-shaped erosion at the top half of the canyon and pointed it out to my brother.He said it is likely normal flood erosion from the colorado,i guess so if it rised 1 mile in a normal flood,but it still doesnt answer why the bottom is still v-shaped.

Dr. Marc Surtees is the one that taught me that it always pays to look at the details.

From satellite maps i also noticed that the grand canyon is directly south east from the salt flats of utah.It could be very likely that an earthquake or uplift caused that inland sea to suddenly drain forming the canyon.

Thanks.

Our understanding of the geology and history of the Grand Canyon comes from tens of thousands of observations and hundreds of studies. From your comments, I am guessing that you are unaware of the primary reasons that a global flood model was rejected over 150 years ago.

Most scientists love to overturn the standard model (that is what brings fame and fortune to a scientist). However, to do that, they must begin with the evidence that is used to support the standard model, then show that the new model provides a better account of that evidence. I am happy to help you understand this evidence. If you visit the Grand Canyon, I could even tell you where to see much of the evidence with your own eyes. However, I really recommend that you do a bit of reading so that at least you understand the evidence. There are many hundreds of facts and fossils to view, and you would never seem them all in a day hike.

Here are some questions to begin.
1. For example, do you know the ordering of the fossils found in the Grand Canyon?
2. What fossils are found in the bottom sedimentary layers (i.e. the Bass Limestone) ?
3. What layers show the first bottom dwellers like corals and shellfish?
4. What layers show the first bones or teeth?
5. What layers show the first foot prints? Where did these animals come from?

The layers in the Grand Canyon can be tracked for hundreds of miles up the Colorado to other canyons. Here is a diagram of these layers from the local and long range view.

The long range view is a bit large, but you can see that if you click here
http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/3/36/Grand_Staircase.jpg
But I will also try a link.


That image on the above link is from a creationist site, by the way. However, it shows how geologists observe the layers as we track them across Colorado and Utah. This allows to look at the ordering as we continue to move up through higher layers outside of the Canyon.

Here is the standard close up view


Let us begin with those 5 questions above to see what you know about the Grand Canyon. From there we can proceed to a number of other established facts of the Grand Canyon, and nearby canyons as well.

James

Im guessing you are unaware that no fossils or sediment is actually found in a stacked order, so please, if you could find fossils directly stacked, then yes you would be correct, but unfortunately there is no such thing. The textbook pictures you have shown, aren't very convincing to say the least seeing as how every fossil site around the world shows evidence of a Global Flood. You seem to not understand this, and I will say it over and over again.

Look at those fossil sites I posted, and point out the neatly stacked diagrams that you love and cherrish, and you will see that you can't, because the geological time column doesn't exist. The fossils directly show evidence of a Global Flood and this in and of itself is undeniable. And I would enjoy to see you prove me wrong. I can guarantee that you will not find the fossils stacked in any order, appearing with the most primitve first, all the way up to the most advanced.

So how do thousands of dinosaur and mammal grave sites all over the world not provide evidence of a Global Flood. Show me.

Hi James,
Quote;Our understanding of the geology and history of the Grand Canyon comes from tens of thousands of observations and hundreds of studies. From your comments, I am guessing that you are unaware of the primary reasons that a global flood model was rejected over 150 years ago.

Yes we all do and so do you,because Charles Lyell wanted to seperate geology from the bible and even misrepresented the erosion rate of niagra falls to fool people.

Quote;Here are some questions to begin.
1. For example, do you know the ordering of the fossils found in the Grand Canyon?

Yes,thats exactly why evolutionist claim the ordovician and silurian eroded away,no way they can have bird foot prints that early in the fossil record.

Thanks.

www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm - 18k -

Heres a link discussing and describing permian bird footprints from the hermit shale and some others from around the world.

I thought it would be useful to take all the facts we know about the Grand Canyon and see what theory provides the best account. Since I could see everyone was so confident in their theory, I wanted to begin by seeing whether anyone knew the basic facts.

So here were my starting set of questions
Here are some questions to begin.
1. For example, do you know the ordering of the fossils found in the Grand Canyon?
2. What fossils are found in the bottom sedimentary layers (i.e. the Bass Limestone) ?
3. What layers show the first bottom dwellers like corals and shellfish?
4. What layers show the first bones or teeth?
5. What layers show the first foot prints? Where did these animals come from?

So you are addressing question #1
You bring up a good point. According to basic geology, in order to have every geological era represented in the fossil column, sediment must be building up over every era and no major periods of erosion can have occurred. We do find a couple dozen places on earth where all the eras are represented, but the Grand Canyon is not one.
Every fossil at every location in the Grand Canyon (that I know of) is in the right order (younger is always on top of older) but some layers are missing. As was shown in the pictures and drawings provided above, every layer in the Grand Canyon is well documented with an assigned age. As far as I know, every fossil ever found in the Grand Canyon fits the standard textbook. Many thousands of tourists visit every year and find fossils. But they always seem to come from their appropriate layer.

Only single cell life forms are found in the bottom layers. There are many examples of the algae mats called stromatolites found in these pre-cambrian layers in the Grand Canyon. But we never find bone, or teeth or plant fossils, or corals or any complex animal fossil. A creationist once claimed they found pollen but even creationists were unable to replicate this (it was found only on the outside of rocks and was the same form as modern pollen).

The youngest layers in the Grand Canyon are Permian. According to evolutionary theory, no aquatic dinosaur or mammal had yet evolved, so the evolutionary prediction is that no one will find every find the bones of such animals in the Grand Canyon. Better yet, the primary form of fish we see in the oceans today (the teleosts) had not yet evolved (96% of fish alive today are teleosts).
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~rickl/Fisheries_Web/...gy/teleosts.htm

Therefore, evolutionary theory also predicts we will never find the bones of those kinds of fish in the Grand Canyon. That means one should never find examples of salmon or trout or halibut or flounder or groupers or tuna or cod or mullet or minnow or bass or carp or piranha or swordfish or sailfish or mackerel or seahorse etc etc.

We should also not find those fish in any Permian layer on earth, or any layer below the Permian. The rock of New York is also older than Permian. And as predicted, no one in New York has found fossilized mammals or dinosaurs or any teleost either.

You also bring up the issue of trace fossils (animal tracks, animal burrows, etc). There are quite a number of such trace fossils in the Grand Canyon once one gets above the Cambrian. Below is a picture of animal burrows from the Redwall Limestone.



You provide an article discussing an apparent bird track in the Permian that comes from a 1927 paper. Since then we have learned a great deal about the Permian animals. But may I ask you how you explain all these animal tracks? In the middle of a world wide flood with 100s of feet of sediment laid down every day, you have all these animals walking around making tracks and burrows? How does that work? Just how deep was the water that was carrying these thousands of feet of sediment?

Thanks
James

Hi James,
I fully understand your skepticism in the grand canyon being formed in one year by a single flood.It doesnt work for me either nor did it work centuries ago by the scientist that constructed the geologic column,they too were bible beleiving christians.

The rising of the continents out of the flood waters was just as catastrophic as the flood itself,so we would predict to see a succsession of catastrophic events all the way up the geologic column.

Most of us think the tapeats sandstone was laid down by the flood itself.The corroborating evidence of that is because it lays directly on top of the great unconformity,you know how massive and globaly disspered that is.Also,we find global submarine landslides from the continets rising which would have produced an enorrmous amount of heat resulting in the "cap" carbonates.Some scientist interperate those as snowball earth,but there is evidence against that interpretation.Heres a link to an article.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070323104746.htm - 49k -

We also find corroborating evidence in massive volcanism from a 2 mile think flow in siberia,in addition the higher up we go the less catastrophic the evidence becomes.

So if the events in the bible were true,we expect to see many catastrophic events,but the largest being at the bottom.

Thanks.

Quote;Therefore, evolutionary theory also predicts we will never find the bones of those kinds of fish in the Grand Canyon. That means one should never find examples of salmon or trout or halibut or flounder or groupers or tuna or cod or mullet or minnow or bass or carp or piranha or swordfish or sailfish or mackerel or seahorse etc etc.

Thats a good point,but we predict you will never find a common ancestor or a transitional form for those either.

Quote;We should also not find those fish in any Permian layer on earth, or any layer below the Permian. The rock of New York is also older than Permian. And as predicted, no one in New York has found fossilized mammals or dinosaurs or any teleost either.

How do you know that there not in the permian if you date the layer by the fossil it contains and explain it away as the permian must have eroded away or it must be due to an overthrust.

Thanks.

Hi Jason,


I quite agree. The majority of the scientists of the 19th that came up with the theory of the old earth were bible believing Christians. Some (e.g. Reverend Adam Sedgwick) were even ordained ministers.



By looking at how different layers are tilted, relative to one another we can see when the sedimentary layers were laid down relative to the periods of various mountain building events. In the bottom of the Canyon, those tilted layers are a great example. But all the upper layers were pushed higher at a later time as one can see in that big drawing I posted earlier.

Such comparisons are one of the ways we know the age of the Rockies relative to the age of the Sierras for example.



Actually, just about every geologist will tell you the most catastrophic event in the history of life was the great Permian extinction, which is at the very top of the Grand Canyon (250 million years ago). 90% of all marine species and 70% of all land species vanish from the fossil record at this point, never seen in higher levels again. It is estimated that 99.5% of all individuals died at this point. This is the same time that that those great Siberian lava fields were laid down (with enough lava to cover the entire earth to a depth of 20 feet and no doubt releasing massive amounts of sulfer dioxide).

The massive death found at this layer is marked all over the earth. It marked the end of the trilobites and a number of favorites among fossil hunters. It also marked the end of most of the mammal like reptiles found in South Africa like Ennatosaurus.



A good portion the fossils in the Karoo basin of South Africa (which has been estimated to contain 800 billion fossilized remains) are of this type that contains both mammal and reptile features. No mammal or dinosaur remains are found among these many fossils from the Permian.

Of course, none of these layers below the Permian extinction show true mammals or true dinosaurs (we find these only in higher layers). However, this extinction was much much worse than the KT extinction which led to the end of the dinosaurs.

http://www.wikihistory.org/index.php?n=Main.290-248Ma

As you probably know, most of the names we have for layers (Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Permian, etc) were were given in the 19th century to describe layers that had very specific groups of fossils. The boundaries between geologic eras were marked by significant extinction events marking the end of several fossil groups. The Permian was simply the worst of the extinctions.

James

Sorry, I haven't left the subject, I'm just very busy. I'm currently in China, but I may find some time to chip in.

Hans

The Karoo Basin, home to an estimated 800 billion so called Permian fossils. Unfortunately for evolutionist only 1 so called layer exist, there are no other layers above or below it. Also 800 billion animals dying at once in the area proves once again to be obvious evidence of a global flood. Mass graves exist globaly, and so do massive layers of sediment that had to be layed by massive amounts of water.

Ah yes, the great permian extinction, offcourse evolutionist like to make a cover up for what the fossils truly represent. This evidence of a permian only extinction is not evident anywhere in the world. Evolutionist like to claim this, but fossil evidence does not support the idea, nor does it support the idea of a kt boundary.

Why do we mostly find only so called permian fossils in South Africa, because it is extremely obvious that it was one type of habitat. Yes habitats existed back then too. Walk up to the northern parts of Africa and you begin to find Dinosaurs.

Evolutionist like to claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs, well dinosaurs being half bird/ half reptile presents absolutely no problem for creationist and provides no evidence for evolution either seeing as how fully formed fossilized birds are found with Dinosaurs. Actually, it is obvious that dinosaurs are a mix of the two, and any denying this, is denying the evidence as it sits.

Now, about the supposed KT boundary, lets talk iridium. Iridium comes from volcanoes, but evolutionist are quick to cover the true origin of Iridium by saying it was brought here by a massive meteor the size of which we have no proof of.

During the Flood, waters from the deep, would also mean volcanoes bursting from the depths, releasing massive amounts of ash and Iridium into the atmosphere. This is what creationist expect, and it is also exactly what the evidence shows.

The Karoo Basin is divided into a sequence of formations whose sediments range from the late Permian to the middle Jurassic periods.

So yes there are fossils at different levels not just one level

Thanks James,
Quote;Actually, just about every geologist will tell you the most catastrophic event in the history of life was the great Permian extinction, which is at the very top of the Grand Canyon (250 million years ago). 90% of all marine species and 70% of all land species vanish from the fossil record at this point, never seen in higher levels again. It is estimated that 99.5% of all individuals died at this point.

Actually that is pure evolutionary assumption.The fact is,all the extint fossils in every geologic layer combined is only 10% of the fossil record.Many of the organisms that went extinct during the permian have since been found in higher layers,including the therapsids.

1. Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) - July 16, 1992

DISCOVERY HINTS ANIMALS LIVED EONS LONGER THAN ONCE BELIEVED
An ancient jawbone discovered in Canada indicates that a group of mammal-like reptiles survived at least 100 million years longer than previously believed, researchers reported Wednesday.The tiny jaw appears to be that of an animal that belonged to a group called therapsids, which were believed to have become extinct 160 million years ago, the researchers reported in the British scientific journal Nature. The bone was recovered from a rock containing fossils dating at least 100 million...

The main reason some fossils show up in a certain layer and no where else is due to geologic catastrophies not geologic time.Did the ceolocanth disapear from the fossil record because it went extinct?

Heres something that should falsify the evolutionay geologic column,without blinking twice.



There is no way anybody could possibily put 165 million years of erosion between those interbedded layers,and since they are obviously contemperaneous,we can say beyound a reasonable doubt that the cambrian and mississippian were deposited directly on top of each other.

I did say that a one year flood could'nt account for all the geologic evidence we observe,for obvious reasons,but i can say for sure the geologic evidence could'nt be the result of geologic time or evolution either.

Thanks.

Some of us are luckier than others i guess.

Hi Scott,
Quote;Now, about the supposed KT boundary, lets talk iridium. Iridium comes from volcanoes, but evolutionist are quick to cover the true origin of Iridium by saying it was brought here by a massive meteor the size of which we have no proof of.

I was going to look into that myself,obviously you beat me to it.Just because gold is rare it does'nt prove it's all from outer space.

Thanks.

Indeed, but where exactly were these fossils found? I've heard of some sauropods being found in the area, but I would like to know how close exactly they were found with the so called Permian fossils.

Interbedded? Do you have any evidence of that, apart from the colour similarity?

Actually, one effect of a long period of erosion can be caves and fissures in the eroded rock. Caves and fissures that may later be filled with sediment from above.

Hans

There does indeed come some iridum from volcanoes, but nowhere near the amount found in the KT boundary. Not only that, but isotope analysis indicates that the iridium in the KT boundary is of the same composition as that in asteorids and comets, and not like that of terristrial origin.

There are other theories of the KT boundary, however.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93T_boundary

Hans

(On travelling to China)... Well it is mostly work, I'm afraid. Interesting nonetheless.

Hans

Hi Hans,

Quote;Interbedded? Do you have any evidence of that, apart from the colour similarity?

Ofcourse.Each interbedded layer has either mississippian fossils or cambrian fossils in it and they are not just similar in color either,they are also chemically identical.

Thanks.

Reference, please.

Hans

Heres a little hint for you.

The interbedding is avoided by uniformitairians like the plauge.Thousands of papers have been written on the grand canyon,but only two that i know of on the interbedding itself.

Most research on it have been done by creationist' research and you can easily find them.

From wiki.

Muav Limestone (averages 515 million years old) – The Muav is made of gray thin-bedded limestone that was deposited further offshore as calcium carbonate precipitates (see 3c in figure 1). It is fossil poor yet trilobites and brachiopods have been found in it. The western part of the canyon has a much thicker sequence of Muav than the eastern part.[7] The Muav is a cliff-former, 250 to 375 feet (76 to 110 m) thick.

The next formation in the Grand Canyon geologic column is the cliff-forming Redwall Limestone, which is 450 to 525 feet (140 to 160 m) thick (see 4b in figure 1). The Redwall is composed of thick-bedded, dark brown to bluish gray limestone and dolomite with white chert nodules mixed in and was laid down in a retreating shallow tropical sea near the equator in early to middle Mississippian time (about 335 million years ago). Many fossilized crinoids, brachiopods, bryozoans, horn corals, nautiloids, and sponges, along with other marine organisms such as large and complex trilobites have been found in the Redwall.

From Dr. Snelling at AIG

Baffled Evolutionary Geologists
Now if it is apparent from the observational evidence that there is no break here at all, then what have geologists said about this boundary in the geological literature? Being on a long-established, well-used trail which is signposted by the National Park Service, one would have expected that a lot has been written about this location in the geological literature. However, only a few scattered remarks and one close-up diagram can be easily located.

Walcott in 1888 wrote, concerning various places where he saw Redwall Limestone resting directly on what today is called the Muav Limestone, that:

‘The line of unconformity is slight and often none exists except to the eye of the geologists looking at that exact horizon for it.’8
Notice the frank admission that no unconformity exists except to the geologist who is looking for it—another way of saying that often there is no unconformity at all!

Schuchert claimed in 1918 that: ‘The Redwall usually reposes disconformably on the Muav member of the Tonto formation of Cambrian age...’9.
Note that a disconformable relationship exhibits many of the seven features listed previously, but none is evident here on the North Kaibab Trail.

McKee and Gutschick in 196910 merely quoted Stoyanow’s 1948 one sentence statement:

‘The overlap of the Redwall Limestone on the Cambrian platform is well shown in the Grand Canyon sections.’ 11
McKee and Gutschick published a diagram of the North Kaibab Muav-Redwall contact showing a surface with wavy undulations, claiming that it was an ‘unconformity’ with an ‘irregular wavy surface of Muav Limestone’ having ‘relief of 1-2 feet in areas of channelling’.12 Yet field observations made by Waisgerber, Howe, and Williams indicate no such irregular wavy surface or chanelling relief.

Fossil Dating At Fault
It would be very surprising if this Redwall-Muav contact on the North Kaibab Trail has not been studied by other geologists. However, no other reference to this location can easily be found in the geological literature. So why then do these evolutionary geologists insist there is a time break between these two limestones of at least 155 million years? The answer is, of course, that the Redwall and Muav Limestones have been dated according to the fossils they contain, which have already been assigned an evolutionary age. Dunbar and Rodgers state:

‘The relative importance of a hiatus is immediately evident if the beds above and below bear fossils by which they can be assigned their proper position in the instances this is the final and the only criterion that gives quantitative results for the large unconformities. In the Grand Canyon walls, for example, where Redwall limestone can be dated as Lower Mississippian and the underlying Muav limestone as Middle Cambrian, we know that the paraconformity [that is. the suspected erosion surface—A.A.S.] represents more than three geologic periods, yet the physical evidence for the break is less obvious than for that which separates the Toroweap and the Kaibab limestones, both of which are Middle Permian. Many large unconformities would never be suspected if it were not for such dating of the rocks above and below.’14
Similarly, Noble in 1914 experienced great difficulty trying to determine just where the Cambrian strata stopped and the Mississippian began in Bass Canyon (a side canyon to Grand Canyon) because fossil and rock data failed to suggest an unconformity:

‘Because of the lack of fossils and the failure to detect the line of erosion that would mark a division between the Muav Limestone and the Redwall in Bass Canyon it has been necessary to fix tentatively the base of the Redwall by means of lithology [rock type—A.A.S.]. The Muav Limestone is here overlain by alternating layers of calcareous [lime-bearing—A.A.S.] sandstone and dense blue-grey crystalline limestone, which have a thickness of 110 feet. These layers are taken arbitrarily as the base of the Redwall.

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/time.asp - 40k -

From creation research society quarterly journal

Depositional Interbedding and Time Frames in the Grand Canyon
The Grand Canyon and theories concerning its formation have long inspired interest by geologists, evolutionists and creationists alike. Evolutionary geologists have expressed increasing frustration at attempts to explain its formation. Evolutionary geologists believe that the area encompassing much of the Canyon was uplifted 65 million years ago, but that the Colorado River which flows through it did not originate until about four million years ago. It is obvious that if these assumptions are correct, the Colorado River could not have cut the Grand Canyon. If a newly flowing river encountered an uplifted area, it would never climb up over it and subsequently cut a canyon - it would simply flow around it. In the museum on the south rim of the Canyon is a description of several geological theories on the formation of the Canyon, followed by an admission that all of these theories have serious faults. The Havasupai Indian account of the formation of the Grand Canyon is then given. According to these Indians who live in one of the offshoots of the Canyon, the Grand Canyon formed during a great world-wide flood. Much physical evidence supports this belief.

William Waisgerber, a consulting geologist and President of William Waisgerber and Associates, Consulting Geologists; George Howe, Director of the CRS Grand Canyon Experiment Station and Chairman and Professor, Division of Natural Science and Mathematics, The Master's College; and Dr. Emmett Williams (1987, pp.160-7) reported on two field trips to the Grand Canyon to study the alleged unconformity between the Mississippian Redwall Limestone and the Cambrian Muav Limestone along the North Kaibab Trail. Evolutionary and other uniformitarian geologists believe that there exists a 200 million-year time gap between the top of the Cambrian Muav Limestone and the base of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone, since intervening Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian rocks are absent. Clifford Burdick, a consulting geologist who had made an earlier study of the contact between the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall, reported that he had found evidence of intertonguing between these two formations, contradicting the notion that 200 million years had intervened between the deposition of the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall. Waisgerber and his colleagues, with support from the CRS Research Committee, formed a field team to reinvestigate the area studied by Burdick.

Waisgerber and his colleagues confirmed Burdick's observations concerning interbedding of the Cambrian Muav and the Mississippian Redwall. Along the North Kaibab Trail is a sign erected by the National Park Service identifying the contact between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone. The CRS team reports that commencing from an area about 100 yards north of the sign to about 100 yards south of the sign, all beds apparently interfinger with one another. They determined that yellowish appearing micaceous shales were the uppermost Cambrian Muav Limestone. Immediately above these shales were typically reddishcolored Mississippian Redwall Limestone beds. Any attempt to trace individual beds laterally, southerly or northerly along the North Kaibab Trail, however, resulted in a reverse stratigraphic relationship. Supposedly, older Muav Formation yellowish beds rested on allegedly younger reddish-stained Redwall limestone beds. Lateral and vertical facies changes within both formations indicate the absence of unconformable relationships between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone. In other words, where allegedly older Cambrian Muav Limestone rests on allegedly younger Mississippian Redwall Limestone, the contact is a true sedimentary contact and thus the Muav Limestone was deposited on top of the Redwall Limestone. The evidence contradicts the notion that here, where "older" strata (older by 200 million years!) rests on "younger" strata, the inversion was caused by overthrusting or other geologic events.

Waisgerber and colleagues searched an area 50 feet above and below the contact line between the Muav Limestone and Redwall Limestone for physical evidences of the supposed 200 million-year hiatus between these two formations. They point out that such evidences would include: 1) obvious, pronounced erosional features incised into the highest of Muav Limestone beds; 2) basal Redwall Limestone beds exhibiting boulders and cobbles of eroded Muav Limestone beds; 3) Muav Limestone beds dipping somewhat more steeply than overlying Redwall Limestone beds; 4) Muav Limestone beds being somewhat more folded than Redwall Limestone beds; 5) more complex joint systems in the Muav than in the Redwall; 6) more faulting in the Muav than in the Redwall, and particularly; 7) a decidedly different lithology within each of the formations, due to supposed changing regional environments. None of these features was seen. All of the beds were seen to be homoclinal, each bed resting directly on another bed with no known structural deviation. joint planes commencing in alleged Muav Limestone beds seemingly intersected Redwall Limestone similarly. There were no notches and grooves (which would be evidence of a time gap, the time required for the underlying strata to be incised by erosion) in the underlying Cambrian Muav Limestone filled in by material from the Mississippian Redwall Formation, as should be the case if there were a huge time gap between the laying down of these two formations. The evidence clearly indicates that the Mississippian Redwall Limestone was laid down conformably on the Cambrian Muav Limestone with no time gap in between.

The authors of the paper cite the publications of several uniformitarian geologists which also indicate the difficulty in identifying evidences for an unconformity between the Muav and Redwall Limestones. Their paper also contains citations from the geological literature in which the authors admit the difficulty in documenting other alleged unconformities in the Grand Canyon. Waisgerber, Howe and Williams close their paper with the following conclusions:

"1. The unconformity supposedly separating the Redwall Limestone from the underlying Muav Limestone does not exist. Consequently there cannot be any 200 million-year hiatus.

"2. Since the 200 million-year hiatus cannot exist, the dating of Redwall Limestone and Muav Limestone as Mississippian and Cambrian with their supposed ages, respectively, cannot be valid.

"3. Because the Paleozoic time periods cannot be valid, then the longer time unit known as the Paleozoic Era cannot be real.

"4. Since the Paleozoic Era cannot be a real geologic time unit, historical geologic time must be suspect.

"5. Because historical geology is suspect, the megaevolutionary model cannot be confirmed by historical geology because there is no true definition of geologic time.

"6. Since the evolution model cannot be sustained historically, it behooves all scientists to search for alternative models as regards the origin of the earth, the origin of life on earth, and the time necessary to effect such origins.

"7. The various formations within the Grand Canyon area could have been deposited one formation on another, without the need for millions of years of depositional time and millions of years of unaccountable time (hiatuses)."

www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/25/25_4a2.html - 64k -

Enjoy.

So, of all the geologists who have, over time, studied the GC, only two found the interbedding phenomenon significant enough to write anything substantial about it, and those were Creationists? Mmmmm.....



False for two reasons:
a) The unconformity evidently exists in many places, as nicely documented by the picture above, where the boundary is clearly visible.

You can't prove a negative. In other words, even if it did NOT exist, that would not be proof that the time span in dopisition did not exist.



False for two reasons:
a) The premise under #1 is false.
The dating could still be correct.



This is getting ridiculous. Is he seriously claiming that if there is no evidence for that era in a given site, then that era could not have existed??



This is truely far out; certainly that author is not under the impression that studies of the Grand Canyon is the only source of geological dating? Either he is unforgivably ignorant, or he is intellectually dishonest.



Non sequiteur. Even if evidence of a certain dating sequence should be faulty, it is impossible to create a coherent theory of the creation of the GC in a timespan of a few thousand years.

Hans

The mindset that the Grand Canyon was formed in a timespan of a few thousand years is definetly faulty, because in all reality it probably only took 1 to 3 years.

Simply because each layer is a sediment, and using the evolutionary mindset there would have to be a rather large flood to lay each layer of sediment over a period of millions of millions of trillions of unfounded illogical amounts of years. Also this would imply that there wasn't just one extremely large flood, but hundreds given the fact that there is so much sediment. Evolutionist cannot get around the FACT that these are sedimental layers. And they CANNOT get around the FACT that sediments are laid by extremely large bodies of water.

It is easy to see how a Global Flood could move such a large amount of sediment with such ease. Seeing as how the entire planet was covered in thousands of feet of water for a year, well yes I definetelty could see these sediments being laid.

Mostly because all of the water during the Flood would NOT have appeared all at once but come up from the ground in different areas, not just from the sky. This water coming up from the ground would also make volcanoes errupt underground provinding the layers of iridium we find in some places but not all places as it is not found equally throughout the entire world. Volcanoes errupting would also provide evidence of ash on top of dinosaur and mammal fossils, but another thing that provides even more evidence of a Global Flood is the FACT that even more non ash sediment has covered these fossils. All having to be covered over by a MASSIVE amount of water.

Speaking of iridium, evolutionist claim that the iridium layers were laid by meteors, but the fact that ancient volcanoes still exist in the areas easily disproves this misconception.

To say that evidence for a Global Flood is non existant is simply willful ignorance of the grandest scale known to mankind.

Now as for the evolutionary geological time column which truly doesn't exist ANYWHERE on planet earth. It should be re-named the illogical time column. Simply because evidence for a geological time column is severely lacking.

The grand canyon is the worst example of the geological/ illogical time column on planet earth. You need to provide evidence of Smilodon stacked on top of Tyrannosaurus stacked on top of Allosaur stacked on top of trilobite. Which offcourse does not exist in this manner anywhere on planet earth.

But evidence for a Global Flood is evident through almost every single fossil site throughout the entire planet, but the same cannot be said with the geological/ illogical time column.

The authors of the paper cite the publications of several uniformitarian geologists which also indicate the difficulty in identifying evidences for an unconformity between the Muav and Redwall Limestones. Their paper also contains citations from the geological literature in which the authors admit the difficulty in documenting other alleged unconformities in the Grand Canyon. Waisgerber, Howe and Williams close their paper with the following conclusions:

Hans,what does that say?

Every geologist for 300 years have been taught that interbedded layers are proof that they are contemperaneous.Only when the evidence contradicts evolution is it suggested that we need to revise science.

Thats why evolution could'nt possibly be considered a science,it's just a way of excluding God from your conclusions,despite the evidence.

Excuse me, but that is complete nonsense. There was an ocean (or possibly a large lake). The whole area was covered by water for long periods of time, and the layers come from the seasonal discharges from rivers running into that body of water.



Of course we cannot. Why should we even try? Such large bodies of water are called oceans.



Maybe you can. Can you explain where all that sediment came from? We are talking about an area the size of Arizona, covered in a couple of miles thick sediment. And of course, there are quite a few sediment beds of similar, even larger magnitude, elsewhere on earth.

As you may know, such sediment consists of eroded rocks. The known sediment beds represent the equivalent of several large mountain ranges ground to gravel. Where did all that come from, less than 2,000 years after Creation, according to your timetable?

Hans

It is not complete nonsense it is a FACT that you have to face. And I'm glad you are finally understanding the FACT that you just made a big slip up in your logic.... came from large bodies called oceans, from a creationist point of view we would say DUH.

Eroded rocks, let us see now what type of rocks do you speak of, sandstone? Limestone? Stone that turns soft when water is applied? Please explain.

Also remember that it only took a few thousand years or less for the great pyramids and the sphinx to erode.

Quote;Can you explain where all that sediment came from? We are talking about an area the size of Arizona, covered in a couple of miles thick sediment. And of course, there are quite a few sediment beds of similar, even larger magnitude, elsewhere on earth.

As you may know, such sediment consists of eroded rocks. The known sediment beds represent the equivalent of several large mountain ranges ground to gravel. Where did all that come from, less than 2,000 years after Creation, according to your timetable?

The muav and redwall limestones are calcium percipitates.How in the world could that happen slowly over millions of years,except to someone who is brainwashed by uniformitairians.

When you stick your finger in a light socket do you get .0000001 volts over decades? When the temp or co2 levels in the ocean are favourable for calcium percipitation it also happens spontaneously,not slowly over millions of years.

The coconino sandstone is presumably the remnants of the appalachian mts. How could it end up spread over a thousand miles away and all in the same layer?We expect to see it evenly distributed throughout several geologic layers and close to where it eroded from.

Thanks.

When you cool down, you might explain which logic slip I made.



No. All of those are sediment rocks. In other words, they consist of hardened sediment. However, the sediment originated from rock types that were originally melted, like granite, basalts, and other hard rocks. Those are the kind of mountaind that had to be eroded down to gravel, before water could transport them to the Grand Canyon area and deposit them there.



They consist of limestone.

Hans

How could it happen fast? Whatever process you imagine, you need to explain how a mile-thick layer of material can come out of water and settle to form rocks. You need to explain the origin of that matter.



Where does the calcium come from? For your information, the content of calcium in seawater is appr. 0.04%. This means that for pound of calcium rock precipated, you need some 3 tons of seawater. Or, to translate it into hight, to precipate a mile of calcium rock, you need a column of water that is 3,000 miles tall! .... Or it needs to happen over a very long time.



"We expect"? Who are "we"?? Are those the same "we" who, in another thread here, claimed that the ocean beds should be choked with sediment from weathered down mountains, if Earth is old?

Frankly, I think "we" should get "our" story straight: Is sediment washed to the sea by rivers, or is it dumped in heaps nearby the eroded mountain?

Hans

Quote;How could it happen fast? Whatever process you imagine, you need to explain how a mile-thick layer of material can come out of water and settle to form rocks. You need to explain the origin of that matter.

I already did,yet you remain willingly ignorant.

Quote;Where does the calcium come from? For your information, the content of calcium in seawater is appr. 0.04%. This means that for pound of calcium rock precipated, you need some 3 tons of seawater. Or, to translate it into hight, to precipate a mile of calcium rock, you need a column of water that is 3,000 miles tall! .... Or it needs to happen over a very long time.

The entire canyon is only 1 mile deep,where are you getting your numbers from?Reference the cross section posted at the begining of this thread.

Quote;Frankly, I think "we" should get "our" story straight: Is sediment washed to the sea by rivers, or is it dumped in heaps nearby the eroded mountain?

I agree,but we dont see either in this case.

Could today’s surface waters have always been at the earth’s surface while the earth’s limestone slowly precipitated? Not based on the surprising distribution of carbon on earth. Table 7 shows that much more carbon exists in limestone than in all other sources combined.

Table 7. Approximate Distribution of Earth’s Carbon8
Place
Amount of Carbon
(1015 grams)

Atmosphere
720

Animals and Plants (living and dead)
2,000

Coal and Oil
4,130

Oceans (inorganic)
37,400

Sediments (primarily limestone)
> 60,000,000



Here is the problem. The above chemical equation shows that for every carbon atom precipitated in limestone, a carbon atom is released in CO2. At the earth’s surface, this gas enters the atmosphere. Had all limestone slowly precipitated in surface waters, as much carbon would have been released into the atmosphere (as CO2) as was precipitated in limestone (as CaCO3). The earth’s limestone contains more than 60,000,000 × 1015 grams of carbon. That amount of carbon in the atmosphere and seas would have made them toxic hundreds of times over. Today, the atmosphere and seas contain only (720 + 37,400) × 1015 grams of carbon.

However, before the flood the precipitation of limestone onto the floor of the subterranean chamber released CO2 back into the subterranean water. There, that CO2 helped dissolve more minerals in the chamber’s floor and ceiling. As the flood waters escaped upward, limestone precipitation released CO2, which escaped into the atmosphere or dissolved in water. The atmosphere gained tolerable amounts of CO2.

This table shows that limestone contains considerably more carbon than any other organic or inorganic source known.It strongly refutes limestone being slowly percipitated over millions of years.

Thanks.

And I say a mile-thick layer. A mile of calcium rock. ... You know: A mile.

No, you did not explain the origin of such an amount of sediment. Putting in soft rocks as an intermidiate does not help you any, quite the contrary; you still have to have some real hard rocks eroded down for raw material. Wheredo you think the calcium in water comes from? Right! It was originally washed out of rockes.

There is no way you can explain a mile-deep formation of sediment rockes within a young earth time-scale without resorting to metaphysics.

Hans

Ehr, come again?

What we see in the GC is sediment washed to a one-time sea (as evidenced by marine fossils in some of the rocks) and settled to form layered rocks.

Hans