Author Topic: MF,CW/STRATA  (Read 143 times)


  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
« on: January 23, 2017, 03:26:01 pm »
MF: Strata Doc
- So-called “megaflood” deposits are thick sedimentary layers displaying a variety of morphologies over wide areas that are the product of large scale, high velocity floods [Carling, 2013]. 
- Quoting Berthault [2004], “Sedimentology analysis and reconstruction of sedimentation conditions of the Tonto Group [Grand Canyon] reveals that deposits of different stratigraphic sub-divisions were formed simultaneously in different litho-dynamical zones of the Cambrian paleobasin.” 
- McKee and Crosby [1967] showed that sediments formed simultaneously by size and density in moving waters spontaneously in the enormous Bijou Flood in Colorado in 1965. 
- “Thus, the stratigraphic divisions of the geological column founded on the principles of Steno do not correspond to the reality of sedimentary genesis” [Berthlault, 2002]. 
- This has been confirmed by experiment [Makse et al., 1997; Julien et al., 1993].
- Maithel et al. [2013] found the large cross-beds of the Coconino sandstones of the Grand Canyon difficult to explain within current aeolian models, and they suggest that a significant part of the Coconino may have been formed under water.
- Mudstones such as shale compose about 62% of the geologic column. 
- They are generally considered to have formed slowly in the quiet environment of ancient lakes. 
- However, flume experiments show that mudstones can form in moving waters [Schieber and Southard, 2009]. 
- (Optional) - Radiocarbon dating of shale containing 10.88% carbon from a quarry in Colorado’s Eocene Green River Formation yielded a pMC of 0.37, or a 14C age of 45,130 ± 270 14C years BP (Table 2, #13) and δ13C of -31.6 in 2010 on University of Georgia's AMS equipment, which is reliable to 0.11 pMC, or 55,000 14C years BP.

Carling, P. A. (2013), Freshwater megaflood sedimentation: What can we learn about generic processes? Earth-Science Reviews, 125, 87-113, doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.06.002.

Berthault, G. (2004), Sedimentological interpretation of the Tonto Group stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River), Lithology and Mineral Resources, 39(5), 480-484, doi:10.1023/B:LIMI.0000040737.85572.4c.

McKee E. D., E. J. Crosby, and H. L. Berryhill (1967), Flood deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965, Journal of Sedimentary Research, 37(3), 829-851, doi:10.1306/74D717B2-2B21-11D7-8648000102C1865D

Berthault, G. (2002), Geological dating principles questioned. Paleohydraulics: a new approach, Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics, 22(3), 19-26.

Makse, H. A., S. Havlin, P. R. King, and H. E. Stanley (1997), Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures, Nature 386, 379-382, doi:10.1038/386379a0.

Julien, P. Y., Y. Lan and G. Berthault (1993), Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures, Bull. Soc. Geol. France, 164(5), 649-660.

Maithel, S. A., Brand, L. R., and J. H. Whitmore (2013), Morphology of Avalanche Beds in the Coconino Sandstone at Chino Wash, Seligman, Arizona, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 45(7), 126

Schieber, J., and J. B. Southard (2009), Bedload transport of mud by floccule ripples - Direct observation of ripple migration processes and their implications, Geology, 37(6), 483-486, doi:10.1130/G25319A.1.

- The earth's history has without question been violent. However, life remains and flourishes. The central focus of the creation vs. evolution debate is whether catastrophes in earth's past were the result of natural processes over millions of years, or a catastrophic flood of global proportions described in the Bible as God's judgment. If we assume the geologic column was formed during the global flood, then this deluge may also have been accompanied by numerous volcanic flows and quite possibly meteor bombardments. What we see all over the world consistent with a global flood is layers upon layers of sedimentary rock or strata with millions of fossils in it. Several sites provide us with examples of large-scale catastrophic processes important for understanding the mechanisms responsible for the formation of the earth's strata.
- - Global Flood
- - Main Article: Global flood
- The secular interpretation of earth's history assumes there were repeated floods and other catastrophes which caused the extinction of many animals, but were of insufficient intensity to destroy all terrestrial life. However, the Bible says there was a flood that no terrestrial animal or human could survive without divine intervention. And indeed, a single event capable of depositing the entire geological column would not be survivable. It is certainly a fact that cataclysms have occurred in the earth's past, and vast layers of sediment testify to these disasters. When you examine the evidence closely you will see that the fossil record has simply been misinterpreted by the atheistic scientific community, and is instead a recording of a devastating global flood.
- The extensive distribution of sedimentary rocks would quickly be interpreted as the result of a single major catastrophe by geologists but for the presence today of living animals whose existence atop of these formations must be explained naturalistically. Given the depth and distribution of the sediments that cover the earth, it is a foregone conclusion that no terrestrial animal could have survived their deposition if formed during a single event. Likewise, if the flood occurred as described in the Bible, animals could not have survived without God's supernatural intervention. God told Noah there was going to be a flood, gave him instructions on how to survive the event, and had them board the ark before the flood began. The evidence from a historic scenario like Noah's flood could simply not be believed by a naturalist. The only possible naturalistic interpretation is that the organisms alive today were able to survive the deposition of these massive rock layers without such assistance. A naturalist must believe the geological column accumulated at an extremely slow and gradual rate over millions of years for the many fragile organisms alive today to avoid extinction.
- An interesting fact is that if North America didn't "float" on the mantle, the waters would almost be as high as the Rocky Mountain system.
“    A University of Utah study shows how various regions of North America are kept afloat by heat within Earth’s rocky crust, and how much of the continent would sink beneath sea level if not for heat that makes rock buoyant....
- Mile-high Denver’s elevation would be 727 feet below sea level and Salt Lake City, now about 4,220 feet, would sit beneath 1,293 feet of water. But high-elevation areas of the Rocky Mountains between Salt Lake and Denver would remain dry land.[10]   ”
- - External Links
    Up with Catastrophism! by Dr. Henry Morris. ICR Impact #38
    Neo-Catastrophism by Dr. Gary Parker
See Also
    Channeled Scablands
    Grand Canyon
    Mt. St. Helens
    Joggins, Nova Scotia
    Yellowstone National Park
    Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity#Depositional Rates
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 09:35:32 pm by Admin »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
Re: Paper1 Part1-2
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2017, 03:45:34 pm »
Though partial melting in the lower crust is the main rate-limiting step, it is now conjectured to only take years to decades, so partial melting to produce a large reservoir of granitic magmas could have occurred in the pre-Flood era as a consequence of accelerated nuclear decay early in the Creation Week. Rapid segregation, ascent, and emplacement now understood to only take days via dikes would have been aided by the tectonic “squeezing” and “pumping” during the catastrophic plate tectonics driving the global Genesis Flood cataclysm. Now that it has also been established that granitic plutons are mostly tabular sheets, crystallization and cooling would be even more easily facilitated by hydrothermal convective circulation with meteoric waters in the host rocks. The growth of large crystals from magmas within hours has now been experimentally determined, while the co-formation in the same biotite flakes of adjacent uranium and polonium radiohalos, the latter from short-lived parent polonium isotopes, requires that crystallization and cooling of the granitic plutons only took about 6–10 days.
Catastrophic Granite Formation
Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusion and Cooling
Magma Principles
Depth Pressure Distance
Magma Processes
Magma Generation by Partial Melting
Melt Segregation
Granite Formation
Magma Ascent
Magma Emplacement
Crustal Thickness
Emplacement Rates
Filling Time
Crystallization and Cooling Rates
Convective Cooling: The Role of Hydrothermal Fluids
Crystallization and Cooling Rates: The Evidence of Polonium Radiohalos
Cooling Curve
Formation of the Yosemite Area Granitic Plutons
a large reservoir of granitic melts could have been generated in the lower crust during the 1,650 years between Creation and the Flood, particularly due to residual heat from an episode of accelerated nuclear decay during the first three days of the Creation Week. This very large reservoir of granitic melts would then have been mobilized and progressively intruded into the upper crust during the global Flood cataclysm, when another episode of accelerated nuclear decay would have greatly accelerated many geologic processes, including granite magmatism, driven by catastrophic plate tectonics.
Partial melting occurs, due to heating of the lower crust by basalt magmas intruded from the mantle, to the elevated local water content, and to locally increased pressures as a result of tectonic activity. Once it occurs, continued deformation (“squeezing”) segregates the melt so that it flows. Melt-filled veins then coalesce into dikes as “squeezing” continues episodically, effectively “pumping” the granitic melt into the dikes and up the dike-filled fractures into the upper crust. Thus, with a continuous supply of magma at the base of the fracture system in the lower crust, the magma could typically ascend 20 km into the upper crust in five hours to three months. There emplacement occurs rapidly as flat-lying sheets due to lateral fault opening, roof lifting, and floor sagging beneath the intrusion as it thickens in as little as 40 days.
Oceanic plate



Creation magazine has given many photographic examples to show that solid rock can form quickly—e.g. a huge “frozen” waterwheel encased in solid limestone in 65 years,1 fossilised modern fencing wire2 and pliers,3 a sizeable gasfield pipe clogged in months with solid calcite,4 and huge stalactites in just a few decades,5 to name just some. Here is one more.
Wheelbarrow with rock contents
Close-up of the sandstone fragments

Mike Miller of Ohio, USA explains that his father recently opened the drain **** on their ordinary swimming pool sand filter and nothing came out. Upon checking, he found to his surprise that the sand in the lower part of the filter had turned to solid rock since it was put in around five years ago. Mike says, “Not soft, crumbly stone, either—hard rock, indistinguishable from ‘normal’ sandstone. My dad spent a long time with a chisel breaking up the stone into the pieces you see in the wheelbarrow [photo 1]”.

Mike says that their pool is fed with underground water with a slightly higher than normal content of iron oxide, which would help the sand to harden into rock. Photo 2 shows a closeup view of the sandstone.

Petrified waterwheel, Creation 16(2):25, 1994.
Fascinating fossil fence wire, Creation 20(3):6, 1998.
“Fossil” pliers show rock doesn’t need millions of years to form!, Creation 14(1):20, 1992.
That Choking Feeling ..., Creation 20(4):6, 1998.
Stalactites do not take millions of years!, Creation 20(2):27, 1998.


What Are the Three Most Common Cementing Agents for Sandstones?
By Michael E Carpenter
Jupiterimages/ Images

Sandstone is a sedimentary rock composed of mostly quartz compressed and cemented together. The cementing agents are the materials that hold the sandstone together. The composition of the stone and the cementing agent used will determine the strength, durability and weather-resistant properties of the sandstone.

Silica cement, also called quartz cement, creates the strongest and most durable type of sandstone used for building. The cement is a result of the quartz grains overgrowing and expanding the crystallized forms until it runs into another quartz crystal. This type of sandstone typically forms in environments that have high-energy currents, such as beaches, marine bars and desert dunes.
Calcite Cement

Calcite cement is the most common type of cement found in sandstone. The calcite cement typically forms in patches and does not fill all the gaps within the stone. This makes calcite cement sandstone very porous. Calcite is also soluble in wate, which can erode away the cement making the stone even more porous.
Sponsored link
Start Download - View PDF
Convert From Doc to PDF, PDF to Doc Simply With The Free On-line App!
Iron Oxides

Another common cementing agent in sandstone is iron oxide, also called hematite cement. The iron present in the cement will give the sandstone a distinctive red color. According to the Stone Care Techniques website, iron oxide cemented sandstone weather well in dry climates and become harder and stronger, resisting weathering and deterioration.
Other Cementing Agents

Sandstone also has other cementing agents that occur in less common forms. These cementing agents include pyrite, barite and gypsum. These cementing agents form crystals between the particles of the stone. These cements produce a much softer type of sandstone with the particles able to be rubbed off the stone with your hand.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 04:40:02 pm by Admin »


  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2017, 05:22:37 pm »
Reading African Strata
by Tim Clarey, Ph.D. *
Evidence for Creation
Recent Acts & Facts articles have discussed how ICR’s scientists are reconstructing the Flood-sediment patterns across North America using megasequences within the geologic column.1,2 The megasequences essentially serve as “chapters” whereby we can read the record of the Flood from top to bottom. Our compilation of geologic columns and megasequences across North America is coming to a close, and we are now gathering similar data across Africa.

If the Flood were truly global, we should find its sediments on every continent showing simultaneous Flood levels. According to many creation geologists, the continents of Africa and North America were joined together as part of a supercontinent during portions of the Flood year. So, we should observe many similarities in the stratigraphic columns, the megasequences, and in the floodwater levels between the two continents.

What do the rocks show? Although we have only completed northern Africa, we do see some startling results. The two continents’ strata match up; they independently record the same levels of the Flood at the same time and in many cases contain even the same type of sediments. The Sauk Megasequence, the first significant deposit of the advancing floodwaters, exhibits a basal sandstone unit that spreads across a large portion of North America (Figure 1). A similar lowermost Sauk sandstone layer also extends across most of North Africa (Figure 2). Finding the same type of broad, extensive deposit at the exact same time on two large continents is exceedingly strong evidence of a global flood!

Later megasequences across Africa record the relative height of floodwaters as the rising seas progressively inundated more and more land. Early megasequences, such as the Sauk and Tippecanoe (Cambrian through Silurian systems), show less flooding extent compared to the later megasequences, matching the results found in North America.

Offshore sediments began to accumulate along the west coast of Africa during the fourth megasequence (Absaroka, Pennsylvanian-Lower Jurassic systems), recording the opening of the northern Atlantic Ocean as catastrophic plate movement began to rapidly create a new seafloor.3 The timing of the subsequent split of South America from Africa is also observed in the sedimentary record. The first offshore sediments deposited off Africa’s southwest shore (south of Liberia, Ghana, and Nigeria) appear in the Zuni Megasequence, indicating the initial division between these two continents.

The Zuni Megasequence (Jurassic and Cretaceous systems) also shows the maximum areal extent of sediments—the most extensive Flood coverage—possibly indicative of the highest water level. This fifth megasequence may have recorded the activity of Day 150 of the Flood, as described in Genesis 7:19-24, when all the “high hills under the whole heaven were covered.”

Finally, both Africa and North America simultaneously record what appears to be the receding phase of the Flood event in the sixth and final megasequence (Tejas Megasequence, Cenozoic stratigraphic units). The sediments of this megasequence show a major shift in depositional pattern, reflecting more extensive offshore sedimentation as the floodwaters drained from the continents into the new ocean basins. This is when the “whopper sand” formed in the Gulf of Mexico as sheet-like flow poured off the continents.4

Comparison of the stratigraphic columns of Africa and North America show many similarities indicative of a global flood. Water levels seem to have risen and dropped simultaneously across both continents. The observed patterns reflect an undeniable consistency with a global phenomenon. Contrary to the unfounded claims of uniformitarian scientists, the global Flood, as recorded in Genesis, offers the best scientific explanation for the actual rock data.


    Clarey, T. 2015. Dinosaur Fossils in Late-Flood Rocks. Acts & Facts. 44 (2): 16.
    Clarey, T. 2015. Grappling with Megasequences. Acts & Facts. 44 (4): 18-19.
    Austin, S. A., et al. 1994. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism. Walsh, R. E., ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 609-621.
    Clarey, T. 2015. The Whopper Sand. Acts & Facts. 44 (3): 14.

* Dr. Tim Clarey is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in geology from Western Michigan University.

Cite this article: Tim Clarey, Ph.D. 2015. Reading African Strata. Acts & Facts. 44 (9).