otseng
The stratas formed first, and then there was folding and erosion. And I stated this at the very beginning.
Then explain the massive erosion of the Appalachian Mountains as compared with the minimal erosion of the Alpines and Rockies if they were formed at the same time.
The predictions should come from the models. And then they can be compared to the empirical data. If they match, then it shows the validity of the model. If they do not match, then the model is not correct.
Again, youv'e got that backwards. The empirical data is first gathered, THEN the models are constructed. Only after the models are tested and CONFIRMED against the imperical data can the models then be used to make predictions.
The flood dynamics would've been quite complicated with all sorts of factors involved - plate movement, crustal erosion, climate change, tidal forces, wind, rain, etc. Since we were not there and that there's been little research into this area, it would be hard to give any specifics of exactly what happened during the flood.
Then you do not have even the beginnings of a valid FM. Glad we finally got that straight.
Stromatolites even exist today. So, the existence of stromatolites by themselves do not indicate age.
Stromatolites are found on the oldest strata on the Earth, 3.8 billion years ago. They do not date the rocks, the rocks date them.
I touched on layering here.
"here" is so full of...inaccurate information(to be polite) it would take an entire post to correct. I just don't have the time right now.
Though it says that shale can form in tranquil waters, it doesn't state that it can only form in tranquil waters.
Why, yes, it does. If it is not TRANQUIL and SLOW MOVING it will not form shale. Shale is formed of very fine particles that will be mixed with larger particles under other conditions.
This is assuming that corals and trilobites live in the same place. If they did not live in the same place, then the corals could have been transported and buried above the trilobites.
Corals are not transported by water, so, no, this is not factual.
Quote:
Brachiopods, like corals, are immobile. How did these get above the trilobites if these layers were laid down in a flood?
Same thing. If they were from a different location, they would not be buried together.
Same thing, not possible.
Yes, it would have been exposted to air if they are indeed raindrop prints. And same goes for footprints.
What??? In the middle of a worldwide flood that covered the tallest mountains??? Ridiculous.
In either the SG or FM, the sediments must've been wet to be able to form footprints. And for raindrop imprints, this is even more the case. And then these prints must've been quickly buried before they eroded away.
In the SG there would be different ERAS where desert conditions would have provided ample oportunity to cover those tracks in blown sand after a rain storm. In the FM such dry spells are not compatable with a world-wide mountain-deep flood.
Coconino Sandstone: 300 feet thick from the Permian period (290 to 248 MYA). This formation is composed of nearly pure quarz sand, well-rounded and formed into cross-bedded layers characteristic of sand dunes.
Or possibly underwater sand.
No, sand dunes, underwater sand formations are entirely different in character and detail.
If it was a desert condition, how can footprints become fossilized? First, how can sand capture and retain animal footprints? And even if it somehow can, why do we see a small number of footprints? Also, the footprints are easily recognizable. How can such footprints become fossilized in dry sand?
A rain shower wets the sand, an animal leaves a footprint in wet sand, the wind blows dry sand over the wet sand and the footprints are filled and preserved. Over time the footprints are buried deep enough to become sandstone. It is seen to happen today.
"Such trace fossils are formed when amphibians, reptiles, mammals or birds walked across soft (probably wet) mud or sand which later hardened sufficiently to retain the impressions before the next layer of sediment was deposited. Some fossils can even provide details of how wet the sand was when they were being produced, and hence allow estimation of paleo-wind directions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_fossil
"Ripples and fine layering in the sandstone are characteristic of wind-blown sand compacted over millennia, rather than underwater sediments"
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/ ... -9641.html
"LABORATORY-CONTROLLED SIMULATIONS OF DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS IN SAND: A KEY TO UNDERSTANDING VERTEBRATE TRACK FORMATION AND PRESERVATION"
http://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... t/24/4/222
The Earth was formed approximately 5 billion years ago.
The roots of the ancient mountain range that now lies at the bottom of the Grand Canyon were formed about 1.7 billion years ago.
What happened to that mountain range? If it got eroded, where did the sediments from the mountain range go?
Into the sea? Ocean?
What happened during the 450 million year period? How could nothing have happened during this time?
Probably erosion, or the climate was not conducive to the deposition of strata.
At 1.25 billion years ago the first sedimentary layer, the Bass Formation, was laid down.
Why are there not sedimentary layers older than 1.25 billion years old?
Again, an era of erosion.
If there was a mountain range 1.7 billion years ago that got eroded, shouldn't the sediments from that massive erosion have formed sedimentary layers
Sedimentary layers rarely form in the same place as erosive forces are occuring, they would be eroded as fast or faster than they formed, to be deposited elsewhere.
At 1.2 billion years ago the sea retreated leaving mud flats behind which eventually became the Hakatai Shale.
Where did all these sediments come from to form this layer?
The Appalachian Mountains was the source of a lot of those sediments.
Why was it completely flat? Where are all subsequent layers also flat? And where did those sediments come from?
Because when they were deposited they were the bottom of a shallow inland sea. Not all sediments are flat, either.
Where did it get eroded to? If it got eroded, how did it get eroded to become completely flat? If we see erosion in the area now (or practically anywhere else in the world), areas do not get eroded flat for hundreds of square miles in area.
To the sea. It didn't.
How did the land get submerged? Did the ocean rise or did the land fall? What caused this?
Both, neither, either one. Melting ice caps, land subsidence, ice dams.
How did the land rise above sea level? What caused this?
Ice ages, inland seas, ice dams, uplift, mountain building, etc. All of the above are KNOWN to have occurred.
Again, if it was sand on dry land, how could footprints have been captured? And why only a few set of footprints?
You are repeating yourself, see above.
How did the land submerge again? Why would the top most layer be 250 million years old? Why are there not more recent layers on top of this?
See above. Why not? A period of conditions not conducive to the deposition of layers.
As a final comment, the thread is partly about which model explains the data better. The SG is certainly quite consistent with all we find in the grand canyon. The FM simply is not. .
I will say this. I do not think either the SG or the FM can fully account for everything. As for which one explains more, I have a different opinion.
As you, yourself have admitted, the FM explains nothing, it simply hasn't shown how it explains anything except in the very vaguest of "what if" stories, most of which have been shown as being impossible(like deserts existing in the middle of a supposed world-wide, mountain-covering flood). Your couple of chapters of a book written by scientifically illiterate shepperds just don't measure up to the years of scientific study of the actual evidence(don't bother with your disingenuous denial of the source of your flood hypothesis, we aren't idiots, we know BS when we smell it).
Grumpy
