|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
ITYM "hold down Ctrl..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: On the OE view, of course, but I'd tend to think of it as evidence of a formerly deeper and faster river cutting deeply into the landscape before settling down to its current size. Meanders are caused by slow moving rivers across flat landscapes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: Coyote, you are up against something God said. As I asked once before, why are you seeking natural answers about the Grand Canyon that only raise contradictions. Why is the answer not, "God." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Yes, that makes a major difference in how the two areas were sculpted. Stiill damp sedimentary layers would carve a LOT easier than basalt, accounting for the huge width and depth of the GC. Still damp sediments don't form cliffs either. It's that nasty angle of repose question that Atheos canadensis keeps asking ...
Again, you can't compare a worldwide Flood to "a flood." Again, this ain't standard "flood flow." Again, this is basic hydrodynamics. But not applicable to this particular scenario. Why not Faith -- because it doesn't work? What makes water behave differently for you than for the rest of the world?
The idea here is this: ... My best guess is ... ... I'm just spelling out my version ... ... seems to me ... ... according to my version of the YEC view, ... That's how I'm getting that the water flowed in from all sides ... But not what the evidence shows. Opinion and guessing have been shown to have very little effect on reality.
In this case the water at the bottom had to flow into the cracks because that's where the cracks were. Fill the tub with water and then pull the plug. The bottom water runs out first. ... Ah ... nope. The water flows down to the drain from directly over it. It will form a 'whirlpool' where the top waters will go down the drain before the water at the very bottom. Try putting drops of ink in the water and seeing what really happens. Again this is basic hydrodynamics and is well documented. Top water is always faster moving because there is less friction there. The deeper water is the more pressure there is, the more pressure there is the more friction there is resisting movement -- even for water particles against water particles. So again it comes down to energy gradients
The water that was standing over the whole stack of strata would find its way into those cracks, just as it was doing up in the Grand Staircase area too and indeed all over the Southwest. ... So it was violently going nowhere?
The water was starting to drain away, west and south from this area, and the whole canyon length must have been cracked in the upper strata and the water flowed west and eventually out into California. There is an east-west slope too and the water from the western area would have started flowing away already so the more easterly water followed suit. Where did it go? The usual theory is that the sea floor dropped at the end of the Flood and that's where all the water went. And you can model this and see that the flow would be entirely different under that scenario. Water over the top of the grand canyon rims would flow in the direction of least resistance to the depressed area, with top water flowing first. And we have an example of this with the Palouse river post glacier flood over-topping the ridge between the Palouse and the Snake river and wearing it away to change course directly to the Snake river. That this did not happen at the Grand Canyon means that your fantasy did not happen.
... and cracks developed on the south side of the mound running east-west. Probably very LONG cracks ... The water that was standing over the whole stack of strata would find its way into those cracks ... And then it would sit there while the waters above flowed south and east. There are underwater cracks all over the world and flow doesn't magically happen in them. What make the water flow Faith?
... but the water exited west and eventually, weeks later? months later? years later? centuries later? settled down to a river, a fast and deep powerful river at first, then much later the river we now see. Which is, curiously, exactly the flow pattern in the Palouse river, but the canyon shape is quite different ... why again is that? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
God trumps it all. Too bad some Christians give in so easily. That is such an utterly stupid thing to say as if God wrote the Bible. If you believe that then it explains so much since it is patently obvious such a god is an idiot who cannot keep his story straight or even make up her mind what books should be in the Bible she wrote.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Stiill damp sedimentary layers would carve a LOT easier than basalt, accounting for the huge width and depth of the GC. AS has been pointed out so many times before, the GC could not have been carved in damp sedimentary layers. Such layers cannot support near-vertical wall; they slump instead. As we see at the catastrophic Toutle River flood at Mt. St. Helens. The first three pictures are from ICR:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
I agree.
If faith were a true creationist, then she would believe that God actually did create the world. That the true Word of God is His Creation. The Bible was written by Man, transcribed by Man, translated by Man, misinterpreted by Man. It is the Word of Man. Yes, it is what Man has to say about God, but it is still the product of Man. For the Bible to be perfect, Man would have to be infallible. That belief in Human Infallibility is simply the biggest camel of Christianity that I cannot even begin to swallow. If she were a true creationist, she would not insist on placing the Word of Man before the Word of God. The only way she could maintain that position would be to believe that God deliberately created the world to merely appear to be ancient. That had already been tried in 1857 in Phillip Henry Gosse's Omphalos Argument. Instead of being the ultimate defense of the Bible from geology, it proclaimed God to be a Cosmic Liar. Faith needs to stop denying the true Word of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Jon,
What is that sediment in the pictures? Please note that you are comparing walls stacked three miles deep with no exposure at all until the canyon was cut, with those much lower walls in your pictures that were not formed underwater and never had the weight above them those of the Grand Canyon had. There is simply no comparison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Well, since this crummy board SW doesn't support vector graphics, try Topographical Map of the Grand Canyon. May not work with old browsers. The initial download may take a little time but it will be cached. This is vector graphics so the resolution is the best possible from the data.
You can pan vertically with a mouse wheel and maybe horizontally with some mice. You can drag the scroll bars to pan or use the arrow keys. Control-+ zooms in and Control-- zooms out. I'll see if I can add more mouse/ button controls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
That is the ash from Mt. St. Helens after the flood tat ran down the Toutle River.
Please note that you are comparing walls stacked three miles deep with no exposure at all until the canyon was cut, with those much lower walls in your pictures that were not formed underwater and never had the weight above them those of the Grand Canyon had. There is simply no comparison. Unlithified sediment is unlithified sediment, compressed or not. Water is water. Gravity is gravity. Unlithified sediment can't support near-vertical walls, lithified sediment takes too long to erode for your scenario. Take your pick. Se also the channeled scablands which you have ignored so many times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That is the ash from Mt. St. Helens after the flood tat ran down the Toutle River. I thought that was ash, and you would compare that to a stack of hard-compressed rock-forming sediments miles deep? No, there is no comparison. Ignored the channeled scablands? Maybe before I knew much about them, but I love them as a great example of what the Flood would have done under different circumstances than in the GC. Though in the case of the scablands they were apparently created by the breaking of a dam that had held back one of the huge lakes that had been left after the Flood. The scale of the scablands is breathtaking. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Se also the channeled scablands which you have ignored so many times. Or the Palouse river that cut through basalt forming a U shaped channel just like the U shaped channel from Mt St Helens:
One is harder than the Grand Canyon rock and one is softer than the Grand Canyon rock, yet both show the same U shaped channel due to catastrophic cascading flow ... the sides of the canyons are different because of the different materials, the wide flat bottom is due to the hydrodynamics of catastrophic cascading flow. So, Faith, you are boxed in by evidence that contradicts your thinking. Notice that in both cases we have a meandering stream left in the catastrophic cascade canyons. There are flat areas in the Grand Canyon that could support catastrophic cascading flow to some degree, however you still have over 1000 feet of V-shaped canyon down to the current river level, geography that supports gradual erosion of this section of the canyon, where the cliffs follow the meanders of the river that has incised into the rock to these depths. For your scenario, the meandering stream could only form after the catastrophic cascade finished and after the river "settled down" (if you can call historic spring flow "settled") ... so any incising of the canyon bottom would be done by standard erosion of sandstone and limestone rock, already lithified -- according to your fantasy -- by the flood pressure which is now gone with the catastrophic cascade flows ... Here are four cropped portions of the big topomap detailing this:
And you still need a long period of erosion to get that deep. In lithified rock ... ... because (a) your mechanism for lithifying the rock is now gone away and (b) the cliffs are too vertical for non-lithified deposits. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : added meandering stream Edited by RAZD, : gc img Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width. Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
you would compare that to a stack of hard-compressed rock-forming sediments miles deep Yes, I would. Unlithified sediment is unlithified sediment. You are not talking about sediment in the form of rock. And the layers were not miles deep, especially the upper ones. Overlying water does not compress sediment. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just because they occur on a flat plain doesn't mean that's the only way they occur. It has something to do with the way sediments get deposited along the course of the river forming a barrier that redirects the river.
But I don't know, it just looks to me like the higher part of the walls in the canyon where the river meanders had to have been cut by deeper and wider water and since that's how I explain the whole canyon, since no mere river could have cut it, it makes sense to explain the deep meanders that way too. What still gets me is how so many here and even that video geology guy explained the deep meanders as water cutting more deeply into uplifting land, even maintaining its own level while the land rises around it. When you said uplift "forces" the water to cut deeper that's really the same idea. That still hits me as dope talk, a violation of the laws of physics. Has anyone measured the height of the river in relation to the earth's core to know it remained at the same level while the land rose around it? Uplift would lift a river along with the land, not make it cut deeper unless it changed the slope of the river. I'm still stunned by that idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, I would. Unlithified sediment is unlithified sediment. You are not talking about sediment in the form of rock. And the layers were not miles deep, especially the upper ones. Overlying water does not compress sediment. The weight of the sediments compressed the sediments, not the water. And the layers were miles deep. You can see on the cross sections that they were at least as high as the top of the Grand Staircase, and I'm counting the layers beneath the canyon as well.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024