You presume wrongly, apparently because you read into things stuff that isn't there. Can you not comprehend this simple clear proposition? Science CAN prove everything that can be proven. Religion cannot. Religion you can Believe . Shitloads of stuff IS proven in science. as well as not. Religion just does not. It is for BELIEFE. This was the question you asked What does science actually tell us about ⦠here is the answer Everything that can be proven. .. You then simply added more of the same questions. That answer applies to all the subsequent questions you asked, irrespective of the cut & pasted pre-concluded pseudo science answers you gave to your own questions at the same time. you asked them. What does science actually tell us about ⦠Everything that can be proven. What does Religion/Bible actually tell us about ⦠Nothing that can be proven
The River systems of our world have not existed more than 5000 years. By dividing the size (volume) of a river delta by the volume of the annual soil deposits at the river mouths, none of the worlds rivers can be more than 5000 years old The Mississippi Missouri river system is the longest in the world, about 4221 miles. It was first surveyed between 1850-1861 by General Andrew A Humphreys of the Army corps of Engineers.His finding was that the accumilated soil deposits of the river delta was about 40 feet deep , giveing the river an age of about 4620 years, about the time of Noahs flood. The compare able size of the deltas of all other rivers in the world show that they also began at this time. Truely, a person has to be willfully ignorant to ignore this evidence. Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood "The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever" (Psalm 29:10). The Biblical Flood in the days of Noah has become a great divide between two watersheds of belief. On the one hand there are those who say it is either a purely mythological event or else possibly a local or regional flood. This group includes practically all evolutionists, but it also includes the "old-earth creationists." These all accept the so-called geological ages as the approved record of Earth history, recognizing that a global hydraulic cataclysm would have destroyed any evidence for such geological ages. The geological ages concept and a worldwide devastating Flood logically cannot coexist. On the other hand, "young-earth creationists" accept the Biblical record of the Flood as a literal record of a tremendous cataclysm involving not only a worldwide Flood, but also great tectonic upheavals and volcanic outpourings that completely changed the crust of the earth and its topography in the days of Noah. Those of us who hold this view are commonly ridiculed as unscientific and worse, so it would be more comfortable and financially rewarding if we would just go along with the evolutionary establishment, downgrade the Flood, and accept the geological ages. But this we cannot do for a number of, what seem to us, compelling reasons. Biblical Reasons A few of the many Biblical reasons for believing in the global Flood are briefly summarized below. For those who believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God, these should be sufficient. Jesus Christ believed the Old Testament record of the worldwide Flood. Speaking of the antediluvian population, He said: "The flood came, and took them all away" (Matthew 24:39). Evolutionary anthropologists are all convinced that people had spread over the entire Earth by the time assigned to Noah in Biblical chronology, so an anthropologically universal Flood would clearly have required a geographically worldwide Flood. The apostle Peter believed in a worldwide hydraulic cataclysm. "Whereby the world [Greek, kosmos] that then was, being overflowed [Greek, katakluzo] with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). The "world" was defined in the previous verse as "the heavens . . . and the earth." Peter also said that "God . . . spared not the old world, but saved Noah . . . bringing in the flood [Greek, kataklusmos] upon the world of the ungodly" (II Peter 2:5). Note also that these words katakluzo and kataklusmos (from which we derive our English word "cataclysm") are applied exclusively in the New Testament to the great Flood of Noah's day. The Old Testament record of the Flood, which both Christ and Peter accepted as real history, clearly teaches a global Flood. Therefore, it seems to us that Christians, professing to believe in Christ and follow Him, can do no less. For example, the record emphasizes that "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven . . . and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:19,20) with the waters of the Flood. This must have included Mount Ararat on which Noah's Ark landed, and which is now 17,000 feet high. This was no local flood! Since "all flesh died that moved upon the earth . . . all that was in the dry land" (Genesis 7:21,22), Noah and his sons had to build a huge Ark to preserve animal life for the post-diluvian worldâan Ark that can easily be shown to have had more than ample capacity to carry at least two of every known species of land animal (marine animals were not involved, of course). Such an ark was absurdly unnecessary for anything but a global Flood. God promised that never "shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (Genesis 9:11), and He has kept His word for over four thousand years, if the Flood indeed was global. Those Christians who say it was a local flood, however, are in effect accusing God of lying, for there are many devastating local floods every year. Scientific Reasons The earth's surface and sedimentary crust also bear strong witness to the historicity of a worldwide Flood, and the early geologists (Steno, Woodward, etc.) taught this. Most modern geologists have argued, on the other hand, that the earth's crust was formed slowly over billions of years. Yes, but consider the following significant facts. All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water. Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc.). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources. The assigned "ages" of the sedimentary beds (which comprise the bulk of the "geologic column") have been deduced from their assemblages of fossils. Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidlyâeven catastrophicallyâand more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view. Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various "ages" supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period. The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial. The fact that there are traditions of the great Flood found in hundreds of tribes in all parts of the world (all similar in one way or another to that in the Genesis record) is firm evidence that those tribes all originated from the one family preserved through the cataclysm. One can understand why atheistic and pantheistic evolutionists have to interpret Earth history in terms of great ages and evolution, rather than Creation and the Flood. They really have no other choice, once they have decided to reject the God of Creation and His record in the Bible. However, it is very difficult to understand why men and women who do believe in God and His word do this. The Bible is explicitly clear on the global Deluge, and sound scientific evidence supports it. But this position does mean that the geological ages could never have happened, and too many establishment-oriented Christians are not yet willing to take such a stand. And that's rather sad in these last critical days. What does Religion/Bible actually tell us about â¦(the above) Everything that Scripture teaches IS trustworthy! What say ye?
are you aware the the Mississippi delta goes all the way to cairo Illinois and is over 40,000 feet deep in places? you have presented what a bible thumper believes about sediment here is what a Christian geologist who works in the oil industry and actually works with this stuff says: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htm In 1973, Steve Austin, writing under the pseudonym, Stuart Nevins (1974), published an argument for the age of the earth based upon the rates of erosion presently observed. He took the estimated mass of continental rocks above sea level (383 million billion tons) and divided it by the rate at which sediment is added to the ocean (27.5 billion tons/year). The result (14 million years), Nevins argued, is the maximum age that the continents could have existed. After 14 million years, the continents would be eroded to sea level. Thus, like they mythical child above, he illogically concludes that the earth must be young. He writes: "The continents are being denuded at a rate that could level them in a mere 14 million years! Yet, evolutionary-uniformitarian geologists feel certain that the continents have existed for at least 1 billion years. During this supposed interval of time the present continents could have been eroded over 70 times! Yetâmiracle of miraclesâthe continents are still here and do not appear to have been eroded even one time!" http:/www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-008.htm See also Stuart Nevins, "Evolution: The Oceans Say No!" in Henry Morris, Duane Gish and George Hilstad, editors, Creation, (San Diego, Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), p. 164-172. What I will show below is the lunacy of the logic displayed above. How long the continents have to go before they are peneplaned is irrelevant to how long they have been eroding. We will calculate how long it would take for the sediments eroding off of the to account for the amount of sediment seen in the Gulf of Mexico. I will say that the amount of sediment in the Gulf is truly astounding. I was manager of geophysics for the Gulf of Mexico for 9 years. I have seen gravity data which shows that along the Louisiana coastline there are 75,000 feet of sedimentary rocks. In the calculation below, I will use only about half that value as the average. I have seen seismic data which shows about 50,000 feet of sedimentary rock 200 miles offshore. So the numbers I am using are conservative for the Gulf. Yet creationists, ignorant of geology have actually claimed incredibly small numbers for the deltas. George McCready Price, the man who heavily influenced Henry Morris, stated: "The actual depth or thickness of the deposits formed by modern deltas varies greatly, but is generally not very great. 'The mud of the Nile delta is not over 10 or 15 meters thick.' some of the deltas in Europe seem to be thicker than this, and that of the Ganges is about 20 meters. 'The actual delta deposits of the Mississippi range from 9.5 to 16 meters near New Orleans, increasing to 30 meters at the head of the passes, beyond which the thickness rapidly increases." ~ George McCready Price, The New Geology, (Mountain View: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1923), p. 147 Nothing could be further from the truth as we will see. Two hundred million years ago the mouth of the Mississippi river was at Cairo Illinois, not at New Orleans, Louisiana. The Mississippi and other rivers had to fill in a huge amount of sediment which is now under dry land from Cairo Illinois down to New Orleans. There are 1,588,604,000,000 sq. meters in the Gulf of Mexico. From seismic data and gravity data, I know that there is an average of 15,200 meters of sediment over this region. We have actually drilled through about 10,000 meters of sediment so that is indisputable. Now, 1,588,604,000,000 x 15200 = 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters. The Mississippi River carries about 210 x 10^6 tons per year. [see Scott M. Mclennan "Weathering and Global Denudation", Journal of Geology , 101:2, p. 296) That works out to be 210 x 10^9 kg per year. There are 2400 kg per cubic meter, so dividing we have 210 x 10^9 kg per year / 2400 kg per cm = 87,500,000 cubic meters per year. A good assumption is that the other rivers emptying into the Gulf probably are equivalent to another Mississippi River. Thus we will assume that 175,000,000 cubic meters per year are deposited. Dividing this into the volume of the Gulf sediments we find 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters/175,000,000 cubic meters per year = 137,981,604 years. That is 137 million years for the river to fill up the Gulf of Mexico. Now, lets do something NO YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST EVER DOES WITH THE EROSION ARGUMENT. Lets put all this sediment back on the Continent. The Mississippi River has a drainage area of 3.27 million square kilometers or 3,270,000,000,000 square meters. Assuming half of the sediment came from the eroded Mississippi drainage area we find that 12,073,390,400,000,000 cubic meters must be put back on the continent. Thus the continents were, 12,073,390,400,000,000 cubic meters / 3,270,000,000,000 square meters = 3692 meters higher before the Gulf was filled in. That means that about two miles of sediment has been eroded off the continents. Does that mean that the continents were 3692 meters higher above sea level back then? NO. The continents sink into the mantle of the earth if you add weight to them. The ratio is about a third of the extra height of sediment is the amount the sediment sinks. Thus if you add 3692 m of sediment the continents sink about 1200 m, leaving the continent only about 2400 meters higher. Thus one can't say that this much sediment is too much. The Mississippi has been in its present place for about 200 million years. Why 200 rather than 137? Because some of the sediment was deposited in the Jurassic at Cairo Illinois was then re-eroded and deposited in Arkansas, where it was then re-eroded and moved to Louisiana, where it is now being re-eroded and put into the Gulf. The net sediment influx is smaller over the past 200 million years than what we see today. This is true both because of re-erosion as well as in the past the Mississippi's drainage area was much smaller so that it carried less sediment. Today the Mississippi erodes from Arkansas. 200 million years ago, Arkansas was under water and thus couldn't be eroded. The Nile River The Nile river presents similar problems for the young-earth creationist. Five million years ago the Nile cut a huge canyon which is 3.5 kilometers deep that lies under Cairo. This was when the Mediterranean was a dry desert with salt and desert dunes found at the bottom of that sea. After the sea waters re-filled the Mediterranean, the Nile spent the next 5 million years filling up this canyon. Only in the last million years has the delta actually begun to protrude from the African coast. (we see the channel on seismic data). Here are the calculations: The volume of Nile sediments in the canyon (determined by measuring the width and depth of the canyon from seismic data) is 200 x 10^12 cubic meters (Rushdi Said, "The Geological evolution of the River Nile, in Fred Wendorf and Anthony E. Marks, Editors Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, (Dallas: Southern Methodist University, 1975), pp 7-44, p. 15). The Nile River inputs 121 x 10^9 kg of material per year to the delta. That works our to be 50,500,000 cubic meters per year (121 x 10^9 kg/ 2400 kg/m^3). [see Scott M. Mclennan "Weathering and Global Denudation", Journal of Geology , 101:2, p. 296) Dividing these two numbers we have 3,960,396 years for the length of time it took for the Nile, with observed depositional rates to fill up the canyon. Thus the delta, which protrudes from the African coast started about 1 million years ago. The Nile has been in place for about 5 million years. This is consistent with radioactive dating of the time of formation of the canyon.
This is the last time I will respond to this juvenile debating technique. You made the claim now prove it. Asking me about Geology is a parlor trick. I make no claims to being a geologist. Now for you to have any credibility at all prove the bible is wrong. Hint first try reading the bible accurately.
Secular scientists are unclear as to the origin of anything: the universe, our solar system, the earth, the oceans, or the creatures that inhabit the oceans. Where did the oceans come from according to evolutionists? Baby boomers may remember this "just-so story" described in the popular Time-Life book series (that includes a veiled swipe at the Biblical explanation while bowing to naturalism). Finally the day came when the falling raindrops did not hiss away in steam, but stayed to start filling the crevices and corners of the naked planet. Then it rained, and the accumulation of the seas began. The accumulation did not take place (in the opinion of modern geologists) through "the greatest deluge of all time" that has so often been described. So far as anyone can tell, it may merely have rained as it rains today. Nature has plenty of time. It probably took a billion years to fill the oceans [emphasis added].1 Do secular scientists have any better ideas today? "The origin of the water in the oceans is unclear" states the University of New South Wales School of Environmental Sciences.2 For decades many planetary scientists believed that the ocean's water may have come from a rain of comets (so to speak) laden with water. But a 1999 Caltech study by a cosmochemist and his team threw a wet blanket on this theory when they measured significant amounts of "heavy water" (HDO) from the Hale-Bopp comet.3 This type of water contains deuterium, a heavier isotope of hydrogen having one neutron and one proton in the nucleus. If the "oceans-from-comets" theory is correct, our oceans should be deuterium-rich. They are not. What do creationists say regarding the origin of the oceans? We look to the Biblical model and find that our planet began cool and covered with water (see Genesis 1:2) as opposed to the secular model stating it was molten rock with no water! On the third day of creation, the waters under the heaven were gathered into one place which God called Seas (see Genesis 1:9-10). Centuries later, at the Flood, He again covered the land with water, until the fountains of the deep were closed and the water receded steadily from the earth. As the fountains closed, the ocean floor sank, forming new and much deeper ocean basins (such as the 36,163 foot deep Mariana Trench), permitting the continents to drain and emerge from the waters. Today's oceans eloquently testify to God's creative power, His judgement at the Flood, and His provision today.
Many have observed that the large salt accumulations occur in basins formed by major tectonic downwarping, often associated with ancient volcanic eruptions. Seawater contains a variety of salts, and when seawater evaporates, these solids are left behind. The most abundant salt in seawater is sodium chloride (NaC1) which will be referred to in this article simply as salt (technically it is called halite). Layers of salt occur naturally in the geologic record, comprising an abundant source of salt for human consumption worldwide. Today, some salt deposits are land derived, as when salty water seeps from the rocks of Grand Canyon, evaporates and leaves a salty residue. Others are related to enclosed coastal lagoons, which fill up with seawater during a storm, but whose waters are trapped and evaporate between storms. Thus, salt deposits are classed as evaporites. If a basin of seawater 100 feet thick were to evaporate, only about 2 feet of salt would be left behind. Can seawater evaporation account for all "evaporites"? If so, multiplied millions of years would be necessary for their build up, for some salt beds are extremely thick and wide. The salt deposits often occur in layers covering thousands of square miles with salt hundreds of feet thick. Old earth uniformitarian thinking postulates an enclosed basin or coastal lagoon which repeatedly floods and evaporates over long periods of time, allowing thick deposits of salt to build up. The mind boggles at huge basins undergoing identical cycles of flooding and evaporation uncountable times, all the while remaining in the same location for millions and millions of years. By contrast, modern lagoons fill in, migrate, erodeâthere is no long-term stability for coastal features. The regionally extensive salt beds in the geologic record are quite different from evaporites forming today. Seawater contains many chemical and mineral impurities as well as both single-celled and multi-celled plants and animals and any exposed dry lagoon will be an active life zone. Thus, modern evaporites are quite impure. But the major salt deposits in the geologic record are absolutely pure salt! Salt mines simply crush it and put it on the store shelf. Surely these large, pure salt beds are not evaporated seawater. Some other process must have formed them. As with many features in geology, catastrophic views are replacing the old, impotent uniformitarian ones. Many have observed that the large salt accumulations occur in basins formed by major tectonic downwarping, often associated with ancient volcanic eruptions. The evidence does not fit with the idea of a trapped lagoon. Where are the fossils? Where are the impurities? Many now think the salt was extruded in superheated, supersaturated salt brines from deep in the earth along faults. Once encountering the cold ocean waters, the hot brines could no longer sustain the high concentrations of salt, which rapidly precipitated out of solution, free of impurities and marine organisms. The great Flood of Noah's day provides the proper context. During the Flood, great volumes of magma, water, metals, and chemicals, were extruded onto the surface from the depths of the earth, as the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) spewed forth hot volcanic materials. Today we find them (especially salt) interbedded with Flood sediments, just as the "Back to Genesis" model predicts.
Catastrophists/creationists consider mountains to be largely the result of Noah's Flood, which first deposited strata, then folded and eroded them, then later still uplifted them into modern mountain chains. In geology a controversy prevails concerning uniformity and catastrophe. Regarding mountain building, uniformity maintains that the necessary tectonic forces have always acted, and there should be mountains of every age. Catastrophists/creationists, however, consider mountains to be largely the result of Noah's Flood, which first deposited strata, then folded and eroded them, then later still uplifted them into modern mountain chains. Intense geologic processes were operating at rates, scales, and intensities, far in excess of today's "uniform" norms. Creationists believe some mountains may have risen during the late Flood (for example the Appalachian Mountains), but most mountains (Sierra Nevada, Rocky Mountains, etc.) were elevated in the latest Flood or earliest post-Flood times.** Thus, creationists would expect the world's mountain chains to be among its most recent geologic features. As can be seen from the following list of data collected from numerous investigators and abridged from a similar chart by evolutionists Ollier and Pain in The Origin of Mountains, 2000, pp. 304-306, this expectation has been realized. Keep in mind that in standard evolutionary thinking, which involves billions of years, a few million years is no time at all. Thus, even evolutionists admit nearly all the world's mountains rose just "yesterday" in earth history. Obviously, this is a "big picture" consideration. Virtually all the mountains of the entire world rose up in the last episode of Earth's geologic history just as expected from creation thinking. Some fine points may await resolution, yet the big picture favors creation. Mountain Chain/ Plateau/Rift Years Since Main Uplift Europe Swiss Alps Apennines Mtns. Pyrenees Mtns. Baetic Cordillera Carpathian Mtns. Caucasus Mnts. Ural Mtns. Sudeten Mtns. <2 million 1-2 million 2-5 million 2-5 million 2-5 million <2 million 1-2 million 1-5 million Asia Tibetan Plateau Himalaya Mtns. Kunlun Mtns. Tien Shan Mtns. Shanxi Mtns. Japanese Mtns. Taiwan Mtns. <3.4 million <3.4 million <4 million <2 million <3 million <5 million <5 million North America Sierra Nevada Mtns. Main Colorado Plateau Bighorn Mtns. Rocky Mtns. Canadian Cordillera Cascade Range <2 million <3 million <3 million <5 million 2-5 million 4-5 million South America Chilean Andes Bolivian Andes Ecuadorian Andes <5 million <5 million <5 million Africa Ethiopian Rift Western Rift Ruwenzori Mtns. <2.9 million <3 million <3 million Other New Guinea Mtns. New Zealand Mtns. 2 million <5 million ** Scripture affirms that the waters once "stood above the mountains" (Psalm 104:6), then retreated (v.7), and then the mountains rose and the valleys sank (v.8). Related Topics
ok you have met the requirements for forfeit. i win. you have no ability to back up your beliefs. no claims to being a geologist yet you claim the flood happened. maybe you should study some geology and come back informed.
if all mountians are a result of the flood why are the Appalachians so much more eroded that the sierras indicating a vast age difference? http://home.entouch.net/dmd/appalach1.htm Appalachians show evidence of earth's age On the AIG web site we find silly statements like that made by Michael Oard, "Observing the rocks in my part of the world, I find examples that would line up with part or even most of the geological column, but other examples that are out of order. These out-of-order areas are usually attributed to overthrusting, of which there is rarely evidence for much movement while abundant evidence for rock shearing is seen on other types of faults. " http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom..._extinction.asp Such statements display a huge lack of knowledge of the geologic record. Overthrusts are common, always have evidence and are never like what the YECs portray them to be. Below is a seismic line which shows a major overthrust, a major erosional event and then more deposition followed by tilting of the entire subregional part of the continent. The line was one shot by Texaco along the Alabama/Mississippi border just NE of Meridian, Mississippi. The reference is A. W. Bally, _Seismic Expression of Structural Styles, Vol. 3, AAPG Studies in Geology Series, #15,, p. 3.4.1-82. It shows a wonderful example of why slow sedimentation must be the rule and presents a big problem for the global flood. A word about seismic. The black peaks and grey troughs are the reflections of sound off of various rock layers which are in the earth. By reflecting the sound, we can produce a picture, like this, of what the earth looks like under one's feet. The picture is about 20 km of seismic data. It can be seen that the valley in the unconformity is about 3 km wide. The thrust block is about 16 km or 9 miles long. Such pictures are no different than what a doctor produces when they do a sonogram. > At the top of the section are the sediments of the Atlantic coastal plains. They are flatish-lying dipping slightly to the SE. They are about 3500 feet thick and consist mostly of sands and shales. They lie on top of a major unconformity which separates the Paleozoic Appalachian sediments from the Atlantic Coastal plain sediments. Below the unconformity is the Paleozoic sediments which consist not only of sands and shales but also very thick piles of carbonate and dolomite. dolomite. They are around 18,500 feet thick. This is determined by the velocity of sound in those sediments. Rocks in the Paleozoic are almost always faster than rocks in the younger Mesozoic and Mesozoic rocks in general are even faster than those from the Tertiary. > If you look below the unconformity you will find a thrust fault having thrusted the Paleozoic sediments over on top of themselves Bed a is marked on both sides of the thrust fault and one can clearly see that it is overthrusted on top of itself. The friction of the thrust plane against the upper part of the thrust caused the sediments to be folded. The fold was then eroded. Since bed A to the right is buried by 1.3 seconds of Paleozoic sediment (approximately 10,000 feet), yet it intersects the unconformity where it is covered by NO Paleozoic sediment, this means that 10,000 feet of sediment was eroded from the point marked 'hill'. If you look at the sediments just under the unconformity on the right and move to the left you will see layer after layer erosionally truncated by the unconformity until you get to hill where bed A is at the surface of the unconformity. > Where I marked a hill, If you look at the unconformity, you will see that it drops down at that point. the flat reflectors above are clearly onlapping the unconformable surface against the hill. The valley was eroded into the underlying Paleozoic sediments PRIOR to the deposition of the Mesozoic sediment. If you look just to the right of the hill, under the word valley, above the unconformity you will see a black reflector which runs into the hill to the left and then into the unconformity on the right. The relationship between this reflector and the unconformity shows that the valley to the right of the hill was infilled in a rather gentle way otherwise the sediments would be chaotic. This valley was probably an arm of the ocean at one point because the sediments that fill it are marine as are all the Atlantic Coastal Plain sediments. > After the Mesozoic sediments were deposited, the entire area was slightly tilted to the SE. > The sequence of events cause great problems for the concept of a global flood. Global flood advocates always say that fossilization can only occur during catastrophic events such as the flood. Well there are fossiliferous Paleozoic sediments below the unconformity as well as above. Thus the flood advocate must hold that all the sediment in this picture is from the flood. This means that during the flood 18,500 feet of Paleozoic sediment must have been deposited. It must then have hardened. Why? Because of the way the thrusting deformed the rocks. This is not a soft-sediment type of deformation. The upper thrust block moved as a solid block. If the sediments had been soft, this couldn't have happened. Soft ooze and mush won't transmit forces for 9 miles. Assuming that the Paleozoic constituted half of the flood's time, then in 6 months we must deposit 18,500 feet of sediment. This is a rate of 102 feet per day. There are slow-moving invertebrate fossils at the bottom of the Appalachian Paleozoic as well as at the top. All sorts of stationary shell-fish are found throughout the Paleozoic strata. Why everything wasn't at the bottom of the pile, after deposition of the first 102 feet on the first day, I can't comprehend. A further problem is the burrows which are found throughout the entire 18,500 feet of sediment. One must have exceptionally rapid burrowers in order to thoroughly burrow 102 feet of strata a day. That is enough sediment to cover a 10 story building each day. Next time you drive down the road, look at a ten story building and imagine it covered in sediment in one day and thoroughly burrowed by thousands of animals. Burrowed in such a fashion where the excavated sediments make a pile around the burrow which are then covered by the next layer which is a different lithology. > After the deposition of 18,500 feet of strata, and it's hardening (it takes lots of time for shales to de-water, yet we see no mega water escape structures in this sedimentary pile either), we must then have the time to thrust the paleozoic section creating huge mountains (the Appalachians). After this, we must have time for the erosion of 10,000 feet of HARDENED sediment, which then becomes the unconformity surface. Then we must cover, in a gentle way, the entire area with 3,500 feet of Mesozoic sediment. This is a rate of 19 feet a day assuming that the Mesozoic here represented 180 days of flood deposition. One could hardly say that 19 feet a day of sedimentation is 'gentle'. 19 feet of sediment where I live would nearly cover my 2 story house. I don't see how to explain this in a global flood/young-earth scenario. It is time for young-earthers like Socrates to come explain how this fits into a global flood. The YEC silence is deafening on these posts. Can't y'all explain them?