>> There are numerous substantial geologic problems with the idea that the
>> sedimentary record is evidence of Noah's flood.
>>
>> Let me just list 5 problems (want 25? 50? I could list them):
>>
>> 1. The distribution of brachiopods vs. bivalve molluscs in the
>> stratigraphic record. There is little difference between these
>> two groups in terms of hydraulic sorting or ability to escape
>> rising flood waters. How do you explain the observable fact
>> that brachiopods are extremely numerous and diverse in Paleozoic
>> strata while becoming much more limited in range and diversity
>> after the Permian extinction while bivalves show the opposite
>> pattern? How do you explain the appearance worldwide of certain
>> brachiopods, for example, which only occur in, say, Devonian
>> strata (I can look up some specific species if you like).
>
> This would be a problem hydrologic sorting or ability to escape rising
> flood waters were the only factors influencing the order of fossils.
> Another probable factor is original distribution. We don't know the
> original distributions, but do know that brachiopods and mollusks are not
> equally distributed today. They were not necessarily equally distributed
> in the past.
Worrying about the original distribution of brachiopods and molluscs
doesn't help you. The difference in number and diversity between brachiopods
and bivalves in Paleozoic vs. Mesozoic/Cenozoic rocks are worldwide. The
mainstream science explanation is that brachiopods were more abundant and
diverse during the Paleozoic Era and greatly declined in number and diversity
after the Permian extinction event while bivalves were more rare during the
Paleozic but took off and become very numerous and diverse after most of the
brachiopod species died off. The flood model is what? That brachiopods were
buried more quickly (even though many lived on stalks above the sediment) while
similarly shaped bivalves somehow fled from the flood sediments (even though
many live IN the sediment) and didn't get buried until the flood was almost
done. I find this rather hard to believe Karen!
>> 2. The occurrence of igneous plutons and batholiths within Phanerozoic
>> sedimentary strata of such a size as to require, using standard
>> thermodynamic calculations, that the bodies would take tens of millions
>> of years to cool (depending upon their size, of course). How does
>> one have rapid sedimentation with a thick gabbroic sill in the middle
>> of the package of sedimentary rocks?
>
> Glenn has shared some of his calculation on this, and others have offered
> alternative viewpoints. I am no geophysicist, but I know that water
> conducts heat well, and there are many earth processes that require
> tremendous amounts of heat. Clearly the oceans have not boiled away in
> the past. The marine environment has been stable enough to maintain life,
> despite extensive extinctions. And land areas (if they took tens of
> millions of years to cool, would they be devoid of life all that time?)
> have supported its biota as well. I don't think we have all the answers
> about heat balance.
You can't address this. Fair enough but it HAS to be addressed. Where are
the young-earth creationist or flood model creationist igneous petrologists?
This is a real (and fatal, in my opinion) problem with your idea about a global
flood. Bottom line - it ain't science without the numbers.
>> 3. The occurrence of ichnofossils (trace fossils like burrows, tracks,
>> coprolites, root casts, etc.) seems difficult to understand in the
>> context of a global flood with rapid sedimentation.
>
> They seem difficult to understand in the context of slow sedimentation,
> too. If seafloor sedimentation were gradual, tracks and burrows would be
> quickly destroyed by continuing bioturbation. The presence of tracks, etc.
> indicates quick preservation before disintegration.
So we have quick preservation, big deal. It rains, animals walk in the mud
on a river bank and leave tracks, the river rises (it's raining) and sediments
cover the tracks. It doesn't indicate a global flood and, most importantly,
you're ignoring the fact that trace fossils occur THROUGHOUT the sedimentary
record. How do animals stroll about in the middle of a flood after THOUSANDS
of feet of sediment have ALREADY been deposited?
>> How does one deposit thousands of feet of sedimentary rock in a violent
>> flood and then form a sandstone bed with dinosaur tracks on it?
>
> When the tide goes out, wouldn't one expect the remaining dinosaurs to make
> tracks where they could?
Tides? We're talking about a flood which may have already deposited several
thousand feet of sediment! I would imagine there would be nothing left to make
footprints after such an event!
>> Or develop a paleosol?
>
> Are you convinced that the silty layers called paleosols were actually
> formed slowly, then preserved in situ (usually with no unconformity)? I
> am not. Even those with root casts in them are not necessarily slowly
> formed. If they were the roots would have decayed. Even vertical
> petrified trees in growth position are, on closer inspection, by many
> evidences, found not to be in growth location.
Your strategy here is to mention a couple of examples where there may be
debate as to whether or not a particular paleosol is indeed a preserved soil
horizon. I would counter with "Are you convinced that ALL of the thousands
of localities where paleosols have been recognized are not paleosols, indeed,
that paleosols don't even exist?"
>> What about a limestone on top of thousands of feet of flood deposits
>> containing an in situ coral reef with associated fragile crinoids or
>> bryozoans preserved as well?
>
> In many such reef structures the fossils are not really organically bound,
> but are suspended in the matrix. Capitan Reef, for example, has been
> recognized as a gigantic debris flow. Some reefs that show organic
> structure are oriented upside down. They were probably transported from
> where they grew -- which would suggest high-energy water movement. The
> reef problem is very interesting.
Capitan reef has NOT been recognized as a giant debris flow (except maybe
by young-earth creationists who, once again, cannot have even one in situ reef
in the geologic record or their model collapses). I refer interested people
to a neat web site at:
http://www.science.ubc.ca/~eoswr/slidesets/guad/slidefiles/guadc0.html
I would also remind people that reefs are EXTREMELY common in Paleozoic
carbonates around the world. Funny thing how, if they're all transported,
that only tabulate corals ended up in Devonian/Silurian age rocks while
Cenozoic rocks just have scleractinian corals (makes a lot of sense from
an old-earth, evolutionary point of view, none whatsoever from a young-earth
or flood-model view).
>> 4. How does one get thick halite (salt) or gypsum layers in the middle
>> of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks?
>
> How do you get halite layers on the surface? They are usually not pure
> halite, and not very thick. You would have to evaporate many feet of sea
> water to get layers like we find in the column, and it wouldn't be pure
> halite -- or pure gypsum.
>
>> How exactly do evaporite minerals form in flood waters?
>
> I don't pretend to know exactly! To get pure deposits, you would have to
> have pure precipitates from pure brines. Brines still come out from the
> ocean floor. Temperature changes and other factors induce supersaturation
> and precipitation. This suggests some interesting experiments.
Armchair theorizing is not science. Maybe someone could actually DO the
experiments and then we'll talk!
>> Oh, and also please explain mud cracks, scour channels, and ripple
>> marks in adjacent shales to some of these deposits (I have photos from
>> a gypsum mine under Grand Rapids if you'd like to see them).
>
> I would expect scour channels and ripple marks (and other paleocurrent
> indicators). Are the mud cracks in the same area? Mud cracks do form
> underwater by chemical shrinkage.
The mud cracks are in the shale directly overlying the gypsum.
Mud cracks far more commonly form in subaerially-exposed mud than underwater
by chemical shrinkage. Mudcracks are also often associated with other
sedimentary structures indicating exposure.
>> Since you mentioned rapid sedimentation, please explain how long it
>> takes to precipitate, say, 100 feet of halite from flood waters.
>
> I don't know how rapid. But if it were slow, even mm per hour, I would
> expect a lot of impurities in it. The purity we observe would indicate
> to me a much faster rate.
I disagree. Nothing I've seen in salt or gypsum mines indicates any
exceptional purity or fast rates.
>> How much heat would be released by such a rate?
>
> Is the amount of heat affected by the rate?
If I remember my thermodynamics, the amount of heat released is proportional
to the amount of material precipitated but the rate is important because that
heat has to be carried away at some finite rate (water can only transport heat
away so fast before it starts boiling).
>> 5. How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? I can, for
>> example, direct you to an outcrop along a railroad bed in southeastern
>> Pennsylvania showing one mile of east dipping turbidite deposits
>> (with hundreds of graywacke/shale packages) abutting against vertical
>> quartz arenite sandstone beds. Please explain how features like this
>> form by rapid sedimentation in a global flood.
>
> First I have to ask you how a mile of turbidite deposits with graywake/shale
> packages could form slowly? If these are anything like the Great Valley
> Sequence (in NW California, which I studied during PhD research) they show
> little evidence of time between turbidites -- so little that there is hardly
> any bioturbation (but a few examples, showing that organisms were alive in
> the area, and some fossilized, during the deposition), and no signs of erosion
> between layers. To me, this (and other observations) speaks of rapid
> deposition of the turbidic sequence, which was later tilted (in the case of
> the GVS the tilting was part of seafloor accretion to W. North America).
Why would you expect erosion between layers from turbidites deposited in
the deep ocean? Especially in the distal parts of the fans? That's not an
environment where one would expect erosion. I might, however, expect erosion
in a flood model origin of turbidites (where all turbidity flows occurred in
the time span of a few days) since we're talking about a very different type
of higher-energy enviroment.
Of course the individual graywacke beds within the sequence represent quick
sedimentation (turbidity flows). The long time is partly an inference given
how turbidites form (based on our study of modern day continental shelf
environments where they occur) and partly from the deep-water fossils (e.g.
graptolites) preserved in the shales (that's why people were confused about
how flysch formed before turbidity currents were recognized) and the fact that
it's not possible to deposit clay-sized particles quickly on the deep seafloor
(Stoke's Law and all that).
> How much later? I don't know. Long enough to dewater and set the
> limestone well enough to keep its integrity (hours, days?) , but not so
> long that the layers were indurated so much that they would shatter upon
> tilting or folding (i.e., not months or years). There are some places with
> folded strata.
All guesswork. Please direct me to the primary literature discussing the
theoretical and experimental work regarding this hypothesized rock behavior.
I teach structural geology and would be very interested in seeing a rigorous
treatment of this type of deformation.
> Such tilted turbidites abutting against vertical quartz arenite sandstone
> beds! Any evidence of overthrusting? Must have been some dramatic earth
> movement there! How do you read it?
I read it as Martinsburg Formation turbidites forming in a deep narrow basin
(Taconic foredeep) between the eastern coast of North America and an Ordovician
island arc (bentonites in the Ordovician rocks preserve the evidence of
volcanism quite well). The collision of the island arc was the well-known
Taconic Orogeny and resulting in the initial tilting of the turbidites. Later,
the Silurian Tuscorora Sandstone (a quartz arenite) was deposited horizontally
on the tilted turbidites and the later Alleghanian Orogeny (forming the
Pennsylvania Valley & Ridge) tilted the whole package to its present-day
orientation.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies Calvin College, 3201 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 sschimmr@calvin.edu (office), schimmri@earthlink.net (home) 616-957-7053 (voice mail), 616-957-6501 (fax) http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/