Summations Only

Stating the conventional view doesn't convince me of anything. What the Flood would have done only a lot faster. Speed it up and you've gpt the Flood. It gives me an idea of what the conventional theory says, but not the actual reality, which occurred much faster. He was interested in the extent of the layer, not its composition, which is really irrelevant to this discussion. The extent of a layer says a lot about the Flood. Well, rivers do, and if I get enough motivation maybe I'll track down some evidence for you.Why do you all keep referring to a worldwide inundation as if it were just a local flood? Don't you see how ridiculous that is? What got deposited when has something to do with what was being carried in the water at the time. I'm sure you'll find that pattern for sections of the Geo Column but there's no reason to think it applies to the whole column. That is, all the sediments weren't being carried over the land all at once. Under three miles of layers there would be appreciable compaction which is a stage of drying within the few months the Flood was at its height. When the Flood receded the uppermost mile or two broke up but the lower layers didn't, most likely because they were highly compacted by then. There's no way to know how slow or fast such a process it is, its slowness is nothing but a belief based on OE theory. The Flood would have caused all that to happen in the same order only a lot faster. There is no such thing as "modern" or ancient forms of fossils, they were all contemporaneous and all buried in the Flood over one year. The ones lower in the column that look so different from what we see today just died off in the Flood in greater numbers so what we have now is the descendants of their cousins that survived. There's some kind of serious problem with radiometric dating. I have in mind trying to read through Baumgardner's discussion on that subject at the link I provided, but I find all that very hard to follow so I just take the position that there is so much good evidence for a young earth that there must be something wrong with all that. Other evidence disconfirms it so something has to give. The Flood deposited layers to a depth of about three miles. Deep enough? It certainly would. But a few months is all it took in the Flood. Certainly would. But the Flood speeded all that up to a period of a year. Strata laid down, tectonic forces removed upper layers down to the Kaibab in the GC area, exposing walls. So says the ludicrous conventional theory. So says the ludicrous conventional theory.Which ludicrous theory even ludicrously says you can get the knife-edge straight flat and tight contact I showed in the picture of the contact between the Coconino and the Hermit. Everything in that paragraph is sheer nonsense. Even insanity. Erosion does not do any such thing. You must believe God is reaching down from heaven and wielding the "sandpaper" to have such an effect.Yes I know Baumgardner disagrees with me about the basement rocks of the GC, as do other creationists. I believe I'm the only one who sees it as I do. Have you ever walked through such fields? The idea that you get anything like that tight contact with such a surface is madness. In one direction only, and not really very far either. And you seem to think the rock could bend down and then up and then down again even over a great distance? What planet do you live on?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And so you repeat the dogma of your cult. Yet the Bible contains two different mutually exclusive accounts. Yes, that is what your cult claims. Yet we do know what evidence floods make and can even determine the type, magnitude, directionality and course of floods and the evidence each leaves behind. Yes, that is what your cult claims but no one from your cult has ever been able to explain how your flood sorts the fossils or the geology or the radiology in the order found in reality or why the civilizations that existed at the time did not get destroyed and simply continued right along never even noticing your cults flood. Yes, that is another of your assertions but it is just another example of your inability to provide the mechanism or model or method or process or procedure or any evidence to support that assertion. Yes, that is another of your assertions yet the fossil order is rather another fact of reality that you simply refuse to deal with.The fossil order is simply the locations where fossils are found along with the associated geology, paleontology and anthropology.

Hi Faith, (and everyone else as well). Its been a long while; I have had a lot of personal things going on and very little free time. I still don't really have the time to spend on here, but I thought I would throw a couple things out there for your consideration... even though I can pretty much guess how this will go. But anyway... So the flood stripped away all the land down to basal surfaces and then began depositing sedimentary sequences onto that surface, correct? The deposits were laid down as the flood waters rose, right? So before deposition could begin, the surface had to be stripped bare. In your scenario, I figure the basal surface in the Grand Canyon (Vishnu Schist and other Precambrian rocks) must have been about at current sea level, since the south rim is only about 7,000 feet with a mile of sediment underneath it and the region has undergone significant uplift since the deposits were laid down.So the question is... where did all those sediments go when they were stripped off the land and before they began deposition? Into the ocean basins? If so, they then came up out of the ocean basins to deposit a mile or three above sea level???? That makes no sense.I wish I had the time to draw a sketch of this because I am sure you don't see the problem. Maybe you could sketch out the situation for yourself and see how it would work. It makes zero sense to me. Two points here. 1. what you usually call "flat" is hardly flat, even in the way you are trying to make it out to be. For example, the contacts between the Tapeats, the Bright Angle Shale and the Mauv Limestone. As you know, this is a textbook case of a marine transgression. Based on your preferred cross section, the contact looks flat and tight. Well of course it does, it is a drawing intended to illustrate the general situation over a great distance. But in reality the contact looks like the illustration below. Note the inter-fingering of the layers which is caused by changing sea levels and shifting environments, which is the traditional geology explanation. How could a flood create a pattern like this?2. You say that it would be ludicrous, even impossible for long spans of time to produce the knife-edge contacts like that between the Coconino and the Hermit. Well I wonder how it is possible for a flood to produce such contacts, especially since it also supposedly produces the inter-fingering between the Bright Angle Shale and the Mauv Limestone; and the filled channels of the Temple Butte Limestone; and the aeolian deposits of the Coconino; and so on...Standard geology explains these features by shifting conditions; different conditions produce different features. Flood geology explains all these features with a single condition (or maybe two conditions - rising waters and receding waters). As such, flood geology provides no explanation at all. This is really just handwaving regarding the issue I mentioned above - there is no explanation of how the different features formed during the flood with a very limited set of conditions. Saying "What got deposited when has something to do with what was being carried in the water at the time." is completely meaningless. What specific conditions produced the features observed?I came across this a while ago but never had a chance to present it here. In Africa, termites build huge nests and make these combs that they use to grow fungi which they then use for food. Researchers have discovered fossilized nests underground, stacked one on top of another. These nests have been dated to the Miocene and Lower Pliocene (5-10 mya).Here is a couple references: The first fossil fungus gardens of IsopteraNew termite trace fossilsThe second paper requires purchase, but you can read the abstract at the above link and the images can be found through a Google search Google search: termite trace fossils imagesOne image from the second paper: So what conditions during the flood allowed these nests to be deposited like this? Why do modern species that live in Africa make nests more similar to the fossilized remains found in Africa than to those in North America? In other words, how did species, after the flood, find their way to the places where their ancestral fossils were serendipitously deposited?This image comes from the first paper and it shows the structure within which the fossilized termite nests they studied were found. Note the paleosols (ancient, fossilized soil) with in situ roots. Layers upon layers of these structures. How could a flood have deposited paleosols with in situ root systems?None of this precludes there being a world-wide flood, but it does make it completely untenable that the flood created all the sedimentary features of the geological record. It just makes zero sense.And with that... I must get back to more important tasks HBDABE: Oh, I forgot to mention... in keeping with the theme of the thread... "we have the fossils, we win!" Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Your post's image looks like this: Can this be fixed?--Percy

Why would you think anything would GROW in the Flood? All the Flood would have done is carry and deposit things, not grow them. So it would have carried the clam there after it had grown.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There's no way to know how much was stripped, it's just that all that sediment had to come from somewhere. Obviously some came from the ocean itself. That's how I usually think of it, but the water rose to a level and stayed there for about two months, so that could have been when most of the sediment was deposited. Also some could have been deposited as the water receded. Not necessarily totally bare. The "basal surface" had to be beneath the Supergroup since I figure all strata were deposited in the Flood and the Supergroup is strata. I have no idea what level it was at. I figure, based mostly on that cross section of the area, that the current rims of the canyon are what remained after strata originally a mile or two above them eroded away in the receding Flood water. It was the uplift that caused the upper strata to break up and wash away. I've figured they were suspended in the water. And I just found this diagram yesterday which seems to confirm that idea, indicating that sediments can be suspended in water for some months: sedimentation in a lake(I can't figure out how to copy and paste the lake picture here) This suggests that the sediments were possibly carried in the Flood water for some time before settling out in the two-month period when the water had reached its height.So it makes sense to me, sorry if it still doesn't make sense to you. Photos galore show lengths of strata that are clearly straight and flat even after thousands of years since deposition. Not all are tight contacts but apparently you didn't see the one in Message 955 I keep referring to between the Coconino and the Hermit? Here it is again: In other illustrations those particular contacts do NOT look flat and tight, they've obviously been disturbed after having been laid down, at which time no doubt they WERE flat and tight.You go on to ask how the Flood could have produced such a tight contact, and all I know is that for some reason water can do that. I've seen flume experiments where sediments are thrown by the water into very neat separated layers. I looked for an illustration and couldn't find one unfortunately.I'll have to try to come back to this later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here's the image for reference: Buried layers cannot tilt without affecting the layers above them. The reason is because the deepest layers have the greatest weight upon them and require the greatest force to tilt them. The less deep the layer the less force is required to tilt it, and the easier it is to tilt.The lowest layer to the left of the Hurricane Fault, the Chinle, has the greatest weight upon it because it has the most layers resting upon it, 9 layers between it and the Claron.So in your scenario, tectonic pressure causes the Chinle to tilt, and this puts pressure on the layer above it, the Moenave, and that causes it to tilt, also. It requires less pressure to tilt the Moenave, because it only has 8 layers between it and the Claron.The Moenave in turn puts pressure on the layer above it, the Kenyenta, causing it to tilt. It requires even less pressure to tilt the Kenyenta, because it has only 7 layers between it and the Claron.The Kenyenta in turn puts pressure on the layer above it, the Navajo, causing it to tilt. It requires even less pressure to tilt the Navajo, because it has only 6 layers between it and the Claron.By now you should be able to see where this is going, so it should be unnecessary to go through the rest of the layers all the way up to the Claron. Obviously as you rise higher in the layers of strata it requires less and less tectonic pressure to tilt them because there are fewer and fewer overlying layers. The easiest layer to tilt will be the Claron, since it has the fewest layers above it (only one in the diagram, but obviously some overlying layers have been completely eroded away).So because the Claron would be the easiest layer to tilt, and because the Claron is not tilted, it must not have been present when the layers below it were tilted.Also, your fairy tale scenario requires cubic miles of rock to disappear into thin air. If you're referring to layers above the Claron, they were eroded away. It is very imprecise to say that anything occurred at the same time as an unconformity. The difference in age between the youngest layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup and the Tapeats is around 300 million years, so when you say that the Hurricane Fault happened at the same time as the Great Unconformity you're saying that the two events occurred somewhere within at least 300 million years of each other. You cannot characterize two events that could be as much as 300 million years apart as happening at the same time.I think what you're really trying to say is that the Hurricane Fault occurred at the same that the Grand Canyon Supergroup tilted. Ignoring for now the impossibility of these buried layers tilting, not to mention the lack of evidence that anything like this ever happened, not just at the Grand Canyon but at any angular unconformity anywhere in the world, what reasoning leads you to believe the Hurricane Fault occurred at the same time as the tilting of the Supergroup? What other tectonic disturbances under the canyon? You've been saying that the tilting of the Supergroup and the Kaibab uplift and the Hurricane Fault were all part of a single tectonic event. Now you're saying there were multiple tectonic events?--Percy

Which is yet another reason why everybody sees your "Flood explanation" for what it actually is: complete and utter bullshit nonsense. Please stop feeding us nothing but mindless bullshit.

Showing a photo of a hundred foot stretch of exposed strata is hardly evidence that the contact is flat and level everywhere. This is not evidence for a single flood, but instead evidence for repeated floods and regressions. We know what evidence a flood leaves and it is not multiple distinct layers of different material (sandstone, limestone, shale, etc.). A flood cannot account for the Navajo Sandstone which is made up of lithified sand dunes, with marine sedimentary deposits above and below that you say were deposited by your flood.How in the middle of a flood do intact sand dunes hundreds of feet thick get deposited?Your scenario has hundreds of flaws in it, that have been pointed out to you repeatedly, that you refuse to account for.Real world geology accounts for all of the evidence, while you make up "problems" for geology that don't exist, like huge swaths of flat, level strata that you say could not possibly exist for millions of years undisturbed, but the only reason you can come up with is your own incredulity. We point out that they are not all level, or flat, or undisturbed, but you brush aside that, because that isn't what you want to focus on.There is no principle of geology that says regions of strata cannot remain intact and undisturbed for millions of years, but it turns out that your claims of non-disturbance or no erosion between layers are refuted by the evidence that can be seen by people who go out and look at actual rock layers.The only part of the evidence that resembles your scenario is that some of the layers were deposited by water, period. That's it, nothing else in your fantasy resembles what the actual strata shows us. Water, that's all, not the strata, not the fossils, just water, and you don't even understand how water deposits sediment.

Clams that grew where they are found are very different from clams that were transported. Leonardo da Vinci figured that out over 500 years ago. You're a little behind.

The more glaring and undeniably (although Faith will try) non-transportable item is a huge burried reef structure in the middle of the "Flood" deposits.Moose

A local skeptics organizer has often told us about his approach to what he thinks and believes. He takes the approach of trying to disprove it. If you succeed in disproving your idea, then it's not worth keeping. If you are unable to disprove your idea, then it just might have something going for it.Faith, have you ever actually tried to test your ideas? From all those geology books that you boast of having, you should have learned something about the processes of geology and what evidence they leave. So applying that knowledge of geological processes to the formations under discussion, what do we actually find?Faith, in everything that you have written, I am very certain that you have learned nothing about geological processes, let alone having applied them to any of your arguments. You appear to still be stuck on equating the simple removal of water to turning sediments into rock.In all your arguments, the one thing that keeps come shining through is your unquestioning dedication to a young earth. All your assertions that the standard geological explanations are nonsense are all based on your assumption of a young earth. While all the things that geology describes makes perfect sense within the actual time frame, within your vastly abbreviated YEC time frame it would not, so you pronounce it to be nonsense. Well, haven't you ever considered that maybe your YEC assumptions are the actual nonsense?YEC is theology. Theology is Man-made. Man is fraught with error and everything that Man creates would likewise be fraught with error. Therefore, theology, being Man-made, is fraught with error.You choose to take the word of error-ridden theology over observable reality.

qsThat makes no sense.

Why is a reef nontransportable? If it could be uprooted, if it could be carried in the water, what's the problem?

The young earth has been proven, not merely assumed.theology may be manmade, but the Bible isn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.