Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The animals only needed to be high enough to not get caught up in the current surge. This continued until the highest mountins were covered. As simple as that. Completely consistent and a priori plausible unless one doesn't want to consider the possibility.

---

But, TB, that highland was hundreds of miles away in some cases. How did the area get repopulated in less than a week? And how did forests spring up over virtually overnight? And why were no angiosperms caught up in the first surges? This is not a possibility. It is a wish.

quote:

---

Your trying to morph our scenario into impossibility.

---

Negative. You have no trouble doint that yourself. Why did these tidal surges leave only one current direction (according to you)? Why did they uniformly form sand channels that just happened to show current direcions down the paleoslope?

quote:

---

We're not allowed to have surges of limited extent even though the geo-column talks of cyclical innundations of limited and changing extent.

---

Simply because the processes take longer than you think.

quote:

---

Why not? Simply becasue you want to make our scenario sound ridiculous.

---

Again, you need no help at this.

quote:

---

You wont let us have a middle ground.

---

There is no compromise with absurdity.

quote:

---

When we talk of a global flood we're not allowed to have surges, when we have surges we can't have a global flood.

---

Sorry, but this sounds like whining. Come up with something better. Do you think that Darwin just gave up and said "Geez, guys, just give me a break, will you"?

quote:

---

We'll have the flood of our own choosing thank-you - one that explains the data and is consistent with Scripture. You can play with strawmen if you like.

---

Indeed you will. The power of the mind to delude itself it practically limitless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JediKnight1985:
First off, sand is not only found in deserts, but in many various environments throughout the world (obviously).

---

But we are not just talking about sand. Eolian sand dunes covering large regions are usually found in deserts.

quote:

---

Second, the comment about the fern in that sometimes (quite often in fact), so-called "clear evidence" is blatantly, though perhaps not intentionally, mistaken for what it really is.

---

Gee, I've got to get you to talk to Helen Setterfield. According to her, if it looks like a seafull footprint in Triassic rocks then there were obviously seagulls in the Triassic.

quote:

---

Third, as I recall, according to the geologic record supported by evolutionists, much of North America was, at one time, covered by a vast inland sea.

---

Unfortunately for the creationist position, 'much of' is not the same as 'all of' North America.

quote:

---

In addition, in much of the early eras of the earth (according to the theories you apparently support), much of the earth was swampland and marsh. Don't tell me you've never seen sand or a fern in a marsh.

---

Actually, swamps are not well-known for their sand dunes.

quote:

---

The only conclusion I can make from this is that either the world was not swampy, or that the "tracks" POSSIBLY could have been a fern.

---

Well, anything is possible, but some are vanishingly unlikely. And, no, not all of the world was swampy.

quote:

---

I have no problem with the teaching of evolution, etc. in schools. The problem I have is that other perfectly viable theories are blatantly ignored.

---

I do not know what those theories are. Perhaps you can do better than most of the creationists whom we deal with.

quote:

---

I have two questions for you: are you an atheist?

---

No.However, according to some fundamentalists, I am probably worse than an atheist.

quote:

---

If so, why do you insist on propogating your views?

---

Actually, I don't. I just enjoy the debate. And it IS easier when one has evidence on one's side.

quote:

---

If there is no God, there is no afterlife, so what does it matter to you if I choose to believe something different? I'd really like to know why you do what you do.

---

It doesn't matter to me. You can believe what you want. I am simply here to help you understand mainstream geology so that you will (hopefully) not be so embarrassed in the future by repeating some nonsense you have learned from a professional creationist. I'm here really for your own good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

e: Eolian sand dunes

---

​

Eolian sand dunes? Are there other kinds?

​

(The usual brains I pick are in Denver)

---

Yes, there are dunes that form in shallow water as offshore bars. They have a very different grain size distribution than eolian dunes.

quote:

---

e: According to her

​

A YEC?

---

A noted YEC. Find her over at the Baptist Board if you care to venture there.

quote:

---

e: if it looks like a seafull footprint in Triassic rocks then there were obviously seagulls in the Triassic.

---

As opposed to something that evolved into a seagull later. [/quote]Nope, seagulls. They were here in the Triassic. The bible say so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I have read and skipped through dozens of stratigraphy books. I would simply not be able to make the statements you are making from them. Unless I am mistaken, you have simply gained an impression about the 'canyon strata and are expounding gross simplifications.

---

And your explanation of animals repopulating large regions in a matter of days between surges is not a gross simplification? As I remember you suggested that high ground within a short distance is the solution to your problem. Randy has simply asked you to explain. Are you saying then that you have no supportign evidence of such 'high ground?'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Correct Edge. I simply haven't studied 3D topographical maps of the Grand Canyon Paleozic to that extent!

---

Maybe you should get some data together before making great pronouncements, then. By the way, just what have you studied to any extent? It seems that whenever we get into any details, you bail out. Why not surprise us someday and give us some detailed insight into just one topic? Please tell us, for instance, how these regions (up to half a continent according to you) were repopulated so quickly in between surges. I am also interested in which surges allowed the rapid deposition of thick coralline limestone deposits. Were they during or between surges???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Exactly what I suspected.

---

However, this still doesn't absolve you from our question of where are your highlands? If you have a theory, you must have some evidence, so what is it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ We're agreed that the maps are fragmentary or inaccesible or cannot be reconstructed in detail or simply don't exist. So how would you propose I continued?

​

The main point is I'm arguing feasabilty. I am happy with feasability. You aren't. So you rule it out.

---

Sorry, TB, but a lack of evidence is not evidence. This is nonsense. What is your evidence that there were highlands that could preserve species that would then repopulated vast regions in a matter of days, build nests and burrows, all withing forests that grew to maturity in just days also? You make extraordinary claims. You must have evidence to back them up if you wish to be taken seriously.added by edit:As to the fragmentary evidence, yes this is true that we will never have a 100% sample of the Precambrian unconformity in the Grand Canyon region. However, the converse is that for all that we see, there is absolutely no evidence for such highlands. I think your theory needs to take this into account rather than making up a story and say, 'hey, it can't be ruled out!' If you wish to use this logic, then I insist that you likewise give credence to Last Thursdayism.[This message has been edited by edge, 10-29-2002]