From: Glenn Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Please interpret for me how you would go about interpreting the
> Haymond formation within a Biblical paradigm? Here is the data.
> Here are the observations:
> ""Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repititious alternation of
> fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds
> from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more
> than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick."" p. 87.
> ""Tool-mark casts (chiefly groove casts), flute casts and flute-lineation
> casts are common current-formed sole marks. Trace fossils in the form of
> sand-filled burrows are present on every sandstone sole, but nearly absent
> within sandstone beds. ~ Earle F. McBride,""Stratigraphy and
> of the Haymond Formation,"" in Earle F. McBride, Stratigraphy, Sedimentary
> Structures and Origin of Flysch and Pre-Flysch Rocks, Marathon Basin,
> (Dallas: Dallas Geological Society, 1969), p. 87-88
From: "Flood geology of the Crimean Pneinsula, Part 1, Tavrick Formation" by
Alexander V. Lalomov, CRSQ, Vol 38, No. 3, December 2001:
pg 119: "Flysch" is an older geological term, popular in Europe, for
alternating sand, silt, shale sequences proportedly depositied in deep-water
conditions. They are roughly the same as those defined by the term,
"turbidite" in North America."
pg. 122: These data support several important conclusions:
. Deposition of the Tavrick Formation occurred under widespread catastrophic
paleocurrent conditions with velocities up to 1.2 m/s, not in a low-energy
marine basin. These high current velocities are seldom observed over large
areas of the modern open ocean. Therefore, conditions during deposition of
the Tavrick were probably significantly different from modern analogies.
. Constancy of the minerals association both within the Crimean sequence and
between it and those in the Donetsk Basin is evidence of a consistent source
relatively distant from the Crimeans strata.
.Preservation of dragging and erosion grooves also strongly suggest rapid
sedimentation under high current conditions. At the same time, trace fossil
trackways (and burrows filled with sand ) are short, suggesting short time
spans between deposition of successive layers.
.The presence of erosion surfaces of the beds are not a result of long
periods of time of quiescence, but are characteristic of deposition under
high current velocity conditions.
.The period of time between deposition and folding of the strata was very
> Several items can be deduced from thes observations.
> 1. It is obvious that the burrowers prefer to burrow into the shale rather
> the sand.
> 2. The burrows in the shale were present when the sand was deposited. Why?
> because the sand filled the hole (burrow).
> 3. There were few burrows in the sand as there are no fingers of shale
> poking down into the sand as there are sand fingers poking down into the
> Lets try to explain this in a one year flood. Give each shale layer 1 day
> for recolonization of burrowers the deposit would require 41 years to be
> deposited. But that is a real problem. The Haymond bed is 1300 m thick
> only represents a small part of the entire geologic column. All the
> fossiliferous sediments in this area are 5000 m in thickness. To do the
> entire column in one year requires 1300/5000*365=95 days for the time over
> which the Haymond must be deposited. This means that 157 sand/shale
> per day must be deposited. That means that the burrowers must repopulate
> the shale 157 times per day, dig holes, be buried, then survive the burial
> to dig again another 156 times that day. Shoot, Sissyphus only had to
> the boulder uphill once a day. What on earth did these burrowers do to
> deserve this young-earth fate?
These deposits are turbidite deposits under high energy and could easly have
occurred in a short time.
The burrow holes are where the worms dug their way out after being burried
in the shale during the turbitide events. (not burrows down into the shale)
> We know that the burrowers who were buried did not survive. If they had,
> they would have had to dig up through the sand to escape their entombment.
> There are no burrows going up through the sand. And if there had been
> burrows, there should be little circular piles of sand with a central
> pocking the entire upper surface of the sand. We don't see these. If they
> escaped, it should look like:
> As it is, we see this, which indicates no escape of the burrowers:
> ------------- --------------------
> shale | s |
> | a |
> | n |
> | d |
> -------- ------------------
> shale | s |
> | a |
> | n |
> | d |
> This is an indication of lots of time between the deposition of the sand
> the digging of the burrows. It simply isn't credible to have these
> dig burrows at a rate required by the Noah's flood viewpoint.
During the turbidite events,
1. shale mud with worms (or whatever did the burrowing) is deposited
2. The worms dig their way out leaving the cast.
3. The sand is deposited quickly and fills the burrows,
4. the worms are washed away in the fast moving current and not deposited in
5. goto 1.
Such Turbidite events could easily be associated with Noah's flood
catastrophe that consisted of thousands of events from asteroid impacts and
Catastrophic plate tectonics.
> As we go east from the Marathon Mountains, these beds go deeper and deeper
> and are buried by Tertiary sediments which eventually reach 75,000 feet
> thickness in the region of the mouth of the Mississippi. Because the
> Haymond is buried by the Tertiary, we know that the Tertiary sediments of
> the Gulf are younger than the Haymond. Thus if the Tertiary sediment and
> Haymond are flood deposits, then the Haymond may only have had less than a
> month for all that burrowing.
> I eagerly await the Biblical interpretation of this data.
> >then the only
> >> rational position for one to take who really believes the Bible teaches
> >> them is that the Bible teaches falsehood and is, therefore, no more to
> >> trusted than the writings of Homer.
> >The only rational position for one to take who really believes the Bible
> >teaches them is that interpretations of the data within the myth of
> >Naturalism must be false and no more to be trusted than sifting sand.
> Ah, I see, the procedure is this. If what I see with my eyes is in
> disagreement with my theology, my eyes are lying. .....
Your theology must interpret what your eyes see. If not, you have no
theology. What usually happens is that the interpretation of what is seen
comes from someone else's conflicting theology. It is the theologies that
are at war, not what you see.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 13:06:08 EST