TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"We know of no lakes that were stranded by abating flood waters in the geological record."

​

--If I am not mistaken, the reservoir which is the source of these waters is mainly attributed to Grand lake. And I am not sure if there is a way to see direct evidence for it catastrophically giving way. But you should keep in mind that the current hypothesis on the grand canyons formation for the mainstream are just good guesses.

---

Grand Lake was left by receding flood waters? How do you get this?

quote:

---

"I do not see how they could be drained by a mature stream nearly at base level in a short period of geological time."
--Giving way catastrophically?

---

Won't do it. The mature drainage system takes a long time to develop and occurs near base level. If there was a catastrophic drainage there would have been an immature stream profile.

quote:

---

"You still have not addressed how shallow sediments in the canyon wall have become lithified to the same degree as deeper units. How do they lithify while exposed at the surface by erosion?"

​

--Yes I have actually, that is if you read my segment on lithification. I explained that these shallow sediments currently exposed in the grand canyon may have still been under the weight of Triassic+ sediments. As well as later continued lithification after the catastrophe would continue to harden these sediments if any more were to take place. And in fact at this time lithification would have been just as easy a process as if there were 2000meters of sediments weighted on them because of evaporation.

---

The problem is that there was a canyon there. That means air not rock overlying the sediments adjacent to the canyon.

quote:

---

"You have not addressed the issue of fossil and other evidence for emergent land throughout the time of your flood."

​

--what do you mean 'emergent land' and explain how this is relevant.

---

I mean how do you get non-marine sediments including evaporites, sand dunes, swamps and fluvial deposits in the middle of a flood?

quote:

---

"You have focussed on the erosional issue at the expense of the rest of the geology."

​

--No, I have focused on the erosional issue because that is what you have addressed and argued against. I have no problem with going into other issues you may see for the formations, just don't rush into them when we haven't cleared out the issue of erosion.

---

But you can't just ignore everything else!Check that, maybe you can...

"Grand Lake was left by receding flood waters? How do you get this?"
--Grand lake is the natural source for the Colorado river. Any depression would have filled with water as the flood abated. While cannot give it a conclusive value as it is difficult to locate lithologic and hypsography mappings for Grand lake, I have the impression that it is a likely and reasonable candidate."Won't do it. The mature drainage system takes a long time to develop and occurs near base level. If there was a catastrophic drainage there would have been an immature stream profile."
--A mature drainage system would have formed as flood waters abated, this would not have taken long to develop, please see my post previous to my last and my next comment. There would not have been an immature stream profile."The problem is that there was a canyon there. That means air not rock overlying the sediments adjacent to the canyon.
--I think you are still misunderstanding what I have attempted to emphasize on. I cannot illustrate everything for you though here is another quick rendering:Not to scale:
--Labeled as stage one^[I] we have the meander created as flood waters abated, in the format which is depicted by my post previous to my last. For your convenience I will quote myself:

quote:

---

Here is a simple rendering on my hypothesis for the meandering formation as water abates:

​

Not to scale:

​

--The amount of meander in this image is a bit exadurated.

​

-- [1] & [2] - As water abated, small depressions would have filled with water. This one shown^[1] is a larger one. As water depth decreased this depression would fill with water, shortly after spilling out creating a meandering from^[2] through its slow speed progression down a low declination plane.
-- [3] - This is a larger form, a lake which its contents would be held until a later date.

---

--The second stage^[II] is stream erosion that would have occurred post flood. Being such a formed depression it would have been a preferable drainage affluent.
--The third stage cited^[III] is the resulting bathymetry by the effects of the reservoir giving way."I mean how do you get non-marine sediments including evaporites, sand dunes, swamps and fluvial deposits in the middle of a flood?"
--You get a non-marine deposition. If you would like to give a more clarified example we could discuss it in more detail."But you can't just ignore everything else!Check that, maybe you can..."
--I can't ignore everything else, I have full agreement with you on that. I am simply constructing a model for the canyon formation, not the sedimentology.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-13-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Grand Lake was left by receding flood waters? How do you get this?"

​

--Grand lake is the natural source for the Colorado river. Any depression would have filled with water as the flood abated. While cannot give it a conclusive value as it is difficult to locate lithologic and hypsography mappings for Grand lake, I have the impression that it is a likely and reasonable candidate.

---

Actually, Grand Lake is mostly formed by a dam. It is a reservoir. Before that there was probably a smaller lake formed by glacial moraines.

quote:

---

"Won't do it. The mature drainage system takes a long time to develop and occurs near base level. If there was a catastrophic drainage there would have been an immature stream profile."

​

--A mature drainage system would have formed as flood waters abated, this would not have taken long to develop, please see my post previous to my last and my next comment. There would not have been an immature stream profile.

---

You must know better than most of the sedimentologists I know then.

quote:

---

"The problem is that there was a canyon there. That means air not rock overlying the sediments adjacent to the canyon.

​

--I think you are still misunderstanding what I have attempted to emphasize on. I cannot illustrate everything for you though here is another quick rendering:

​

(snip)

---

Then you are basically saying that the canyon was cut in hard rock. Good, maybe we are getting somewhere. Now actually go back and figure how long it takes to develop a mature drainage system, uplift the whole thing and then erode the canyon in hard rocks. Two thousand years? You stretch my credulity. If that were the case we would see erosion occurring at a much faster rate today.

quote:

---

"I mean how do you get non-marine sediments including evaporites, sand dunes, swamps and fluvial deposits in the middle of a flood?"

​

--You get a non-marine deposition. If you would like to give a more clarified example we could discuss it in more detail.

---

Good, then there was always some emergent land upon which to deposit the non-marine sediments. I'm glad you are coming around to the mainstream side.

quote:

---

"But you can't just ignore everything else!

​

--I can't ignore everything else, I have full agreement with you on that. I am simply constructing a model for the canyon formation, not the sedimentology.

---

But then you are ignoring the sedimentology.

"Actually, Grand Lake is mostly formed by a dam. It is a reservoir. Before that there was probably a smaller lake formed by glacial moraines."
--Grand lake technically isn't a reservoir but a non-artificial lake: http://www.threelakeswatershed.com/lakesimages.html

quote:

---

Grand Lake is the largest natural lake in Colorado.

---

http://www.abcmovex.com/states/COLORADO.html

quote:

---

Colorado contains few large natural lakes; Grand Lake is the biggest in the state.

---

http://www.grand-county.com/summer.html

quote:

---

Grand Lake is the largest natural lake in the state

---

http://www.sunset.com/Premium/Travel/2001/08-Aug/BestLakes0801/ColoradoWomingLakes0 801.html

quote:

---

In Colorado, where "lake" is often a synonym for "reservoir," any natural body of water is a welcome sight — none more so than Grand Lake. At 4.1 miles long, it's the state's largest nonartificial lake, formed eons ago by a glacier.

---

--I cannot see why they would express it as a natural lake if it were at all supported by an artificial dam.
--You are, however, correct on its mainstream origin. This is a nice observation, while I would still be speculative I don't think I have any trouble with this. Possibly even particularly compliant with the hypothesis. Reason being is that if it were a direct flood deposit as the waters abated, I would suspect there being problems with lithology as compared to the effects of hydraulics in restraint from flowing. I am still searching for lithologic and hypsographic mappings of the area though."You must know better than most of the sedimentologists I know then."
--No I don't think I do, but please do and give an explanation why this is unfeasible, what observation is inconsistent."Then you are basically saying that the canyon was cut in hard rock. Good, maybe we are getting somewhere. Now actually go back and figure how long it takes to develop a mature drainage system, uplift the whole thing and then erode the canyon in hard rocks."
--Ugh, while we are progressing, I think we still have inconsistencies in your understanding the developmental processes which are occurring in this hypothesis.
--You need to explain to me and this thread, what creates this factor of lengthy time in the formation of a mature stream or drainage system. Ie, Why is maturity unattainable in this hypothesis and what constitutes its maturity.
--The Kaibab uplift did and I concur, effect the evolution of the system very similarly. http://www.kaibab.org/gc/geology/canform.htm"Two thousand years? You stretch my credulity. If that were the case we would see erosion occurring at a much faster rate today."
--Explain your reasoning behind this, and what of two thousand years?"Good, then there was always some emergent land upon which to deposit the non-marine sediments. I'm glad you are coming around to the mainstream side."
--Not really, just knowing that I haven't a problem with seeing what actually would happen with hydraulics in a Global Flood scenario. To say that in a Global Flood, every piece of land is always or even for a majority of (catastrophic) geologic time covered entirely with water is a misrepresentation."But then you are ignoring the sedimentology."
--Quote:

quote:

---

No, I have focused on the erosional issue because that is what you have addressed and argued against. I have no problem with going into other issues you may see for the formations, just don't rush into them when we haven't cleared out the issue of erosion.

---

--I'm not arguing against it, you are.--And also, for a more correct representation for sedimentary erosion, this is a more accurate depiction than the last:
--http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...geFormation_r1_c1.gif[/URL][Reduced with of too-wide graphic. --Admin]
--Thought you might, I also put a link under it so that its actual size can be viewed without finding the images properties and going through all that other stuff. Thanks percy. ------------------

​

[This message has been edited by Admin, 06-15-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually, Grand Lake is mostly formed by a dam. It is a reservoir. Before that there was probably a smaller lake formed by glacial moraines."

​

--Grand lake technically isn't a reservoir but a non-artificial lake:

---

Ah, apparently I was looking at Lake Granby thinking that Grand Lake would be obviously too small to create the kind of flood that you are thinking about. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that a catastrophic outflow from either lake has caused the Grand Canyon to be eroded.

quote:

---

--You are, however, correct on its mainstream origin. This is a nice observation, while I would still be speculative I don't think I have any trouble with this. Possibly even particularly compliant with the hypothesis.

---

Of course not. Your scenario would accomodate any lake. The problem that you have is that now you need to show that there was a global flood that filled these highland lakes, and that there was some catastrophic outflow of the lakes.

quote:

---

"You must know better than most of the sedimentologists I know then."

​

--No I don't think I do, but please do and give an explanation why this is unfeasible, what observation is inconsistent.

---

Well it is interesting how you have alpine glaciers forming at least some of these lakes, but absolutely no evidence that there was ever any global flood covering the area. Your scenario is inconsistent with too may geological facts.

quote:

---

"Then you are basically saying that the canyon was cut in hard rock. Good, maybe we are getting somewhere. Now actually go back and figure how long it takes to develop a mature drainage system, uplift the whole thing and then erode the canyon in hard rocks."

​

--Ugh, while we are progressing, I think we still have inconsistencies in your understanding the developmental processes which are occurring in this hypothesis.

---

Fortunately, you have willing critics to help you out in this process.

quote:

---

--You need to explain to me and this thread, what creates this factor of lengthy time in the formation of a mature stream or drainage system. Ie, Why is maturity unattainable in this hypothesis and what constitutes its maturity.

---

I don't know. It may be attainable. It's just that most meandering streams we see occure near base level, which in this case appears to be the Pacific Ocean. Now not only do you have to develop a meander pattern by erosion/deposition (which we see occurring very slowly today), but then you have to create the Kaibab uplift and then erode the hard rocks (by your own admission) to the depth of the Grand Canyon. And all of this has to be done in less than 4000 years, in fact, probably about 2000 years.

quote:

---

"Two thousand years? You stretch my credulity. If that were the case we would see erosion occurring at a much faster rate today."

​

--Explain your reasoning behind this, and what of two thousand years?

---

As I said we do not see erosion at this rate today. And the 2000 years is because the GC formed, according to you sometime after the flood which was supposedly 4000 years ago. Then you have to subtract the amount of time that the canyon has been observed as a natural feature for at least a thousand years (during which it hasn't changed much, by the way). So I estimate that you really only have a 2000-year time span in which to erode the canyon.

quote:

---

"Good, then there was always some emergent land upon which to deposit the non-marine sediments. I'm glad you are coming around to the mainstream side."

​

--Not really, just knowing that I haven't a problem with seeing what actually would happen with hydraulics in a Global Flood scenario. To say that in a Global Flood, every piece of land is always or even for a majority of (catastrophic) geologic time covered entirely with water is a misrepresentation.

---

Well, then, you'll have to talk to your fellow flood believers. My understanding is that the entire world was flooded for a year and during that time, most or all of the geological record was laid down.

quote:

---

"But then you are ignoring the sedimentology."

​

--Quote:

​

No, I have focused on the erosional issue because that is what you have addressed and argued against. I have no problem with going into other issues you may see for the formations, just don't rush into them when we haven't cleared out the issue of erosion.

​

--I'm not arguing against it, you are.

---

I think I see what you are saying, but if you want me to believe that you can erode the soft and hard rocks of the GC, uplift the Kaibab Plateau and create a meandering stream pattern in something less than 4000 years, you have a long way to go. And even then, this story does not begin to address the deposition of the geological column at the GC in one year, ... or the preexisting rocks, ... or the fossil evidence... The only thing I can say is that your fanciful story relies on a lot of wishful thinking and precious little evidence.

Edge said:

quote:

---

I don't know. It may be attainable. It's just that most meandering streams we see occure near base level, which in this case appears to be the Pacific Ocean. Now not only do you have to develop a meander pattern by erosion/deposition (which we see occurring very slowly today), but then you have to create the Kaibab uplift and then erode the hard rocks (by your own admission) to the depth of the Grand Canyon. And all of this has to be done in less than 4000 years, in fact, probably about 2000 years.

---

I believe that the mainstream perspective is that the Grand Canyon was eroded as the plateau was uplifted over the past 2 million years (not an erosionial event initiated on an already uplifted plateau). As such, it all started as a much nearer to base level meandering stream, which became entrenched as the uplift happened.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I believe that the mainstream perspective is that the Grand Canyon was eroded as the plateau was uplifted over the past 2 million years (not an erosionial event initiated on an already uplifted plateau). As such, it all started as a much nearer to base level meandering stream, which became entrenched as the uplift happened.

​

Moose

---

I'm sure this is correct, though I am not current on the accepted time frame.I have little doubt, as well, that there were catastrphic erosional events by flows much larger than we see today, or that there were 'stranded' lakes which might have drained catastrophically. The point is that it took time to do all of these things including entrenching meanders in the erosional pattern. TC's scenario means that one must have series(?) of lakes stranded at near sea level, which could have happened. However, all of this must have been uplifted after a mature erosional pattern had developed, and then the river must have cut the 'hard' rock to form the youthful stream profile in much less than 4000 years. I think I am beginning to understand what TC is saying, but it still does not make sense.

"Ah, apparently I was looking at Lake Granby thinking that Grand Lake would be obviously too small to create the kind of flood that you are thinking about. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that a catastrophic outflow from either lake has caused the Grand Canyon to be eroded."
--I haven't much doubt that Grand lake would most likely be too small, I would suspect the previous lake being much larger. However, to depict this we would have to have much more information than I currently have available to me. This is a rendering which I created from a 2D hypsographic map. I turned it into a vector by tracing linear grayscale color plots and displaced them sequentially by luminosity. The details are listed on the right.http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...yon_height3_r2_c2.gif">
--< !--UB Model : Grand Canyon [/URL] --> Model : Grand Canyon < !--UE--> --> < !--UB http://www.cc.gatech.edu/data_files/large_models/gcanyon/gcanyon_height.bmp.gz -->http://www.cc.gatech.edu/...ls/gcanyon/gcanyon_height.bmp.gz< !--UE-->--Untill someone presents this type of information, it would be a bit sloppy to assert that there is no evidence for or against a catastrophic outflow from either lake which may have caused the Grand Canyon to be carved.--This is an example of good data as it pertains to elevation and Grand Canyon topography. Though as said before, this is inadequate as it isn't even the most important piece of information. Lithology I would reasonably predict is the key in understanding the merit of the hypothesis. Moose may have access to some information here unless of course you may have an idea. One of the difficulties in this is the wide vicinity by which we need this information. The image I cited above is quite a small area, we need lithology data by which Geologic Column erosion can be inferred from the Grand Canyon to Grand lake in Colorado and a relatively wide vicinity in this area. Extensive cross sections of the South Western United States. I remember a USGS cite where they 'merged' two maps for topography and exposed lithology (Pre-Cambrian, Permian, Jurassic, Quaternary, etc) though I can no longer find this.
--Something similar to here on a Macro scale may also be what we are looking for:--< !--UB Sedimentary Web Resources[/URL] -->Sedimentary Web Resources< !--UE-->"Of course not. Your scenario would accomodate any lake. The problem that you have is that now you need to show that there was a global flood that filled these highland lakes, and that there was some catastrophic outflow of the lakes."
--Not exactly, I need to show that it is a reasonable and feasible. Again, even the mainstream thoughts on its formation are just good guesses based on what we know of erosion as it is observed today."Well it is interesting how you have alpine glaciers forming at least some of these lakes, but absolutely no evidence that there was ever any global flood covering the area. Your scenario is inconsistent with too may geological facts."
--I think that's a pretty strong assertion, to say that there is no evidence that a global flood covered the area. I only need to show you a couple of marine depositions throughout the geologic column to show you that this is false. Or maybe you should have been a little more direct/specific?
--If there are more geologic facts which I have not considered in the issue of erosion, please post it."Fortunately, you have willing critics to help you out in this process."
--Fortunately."I don't know. It may be attainable."
--Interesting, eh?"It's just that most meandering streams we see occur near base level, which in this case appears to be the Pacific Ocean."
--No problem with this. Fill in the grand canyon and base level is still very much buried beneath the sediments."Now not only do you have to develop a meander pattern by erosion/deposition (which we see occurring very slowly today)..."
--Something very nice to note is:

quote:

---

We cannot say with assurance how running water first fashioned the great valleys and drainage basins of the continents, for the record has been lost in time. But we do know that certain processes are now at work in widening and valleys, and it seems safe to assume that they also operated in the past. [Physical Geology - Leet & Judson 1965]

---

--Emphasis on the former, catastrophism challenges this and it is not appropriate to assume the latter when considering all the tenable possibilities. You haven't shown me why meandering is not possible in the scenario, I can pour water off a slope and depending on its declination, it will meander in various compositions. A beach is a very nice example. The longer the distance from the shore, the larger the meander. We also have a very nice period of time for this meander to increase in emphesis."but then you have to create the Kaibab uplift and then erode the hard rocks (by your own admission) to the depth of the Grand Canyon. And all of this has to be done in less than 4000 years, in fact, probably about 2000 years."
--Yes, though depending on the method of reasoning which is thought by the time of the Kaibab uplift, erosion through it would have been particularly soft sediments in stage one through stage two as cited earlier in our posts.
--Also, moose was correct to point out the mainstream perspective. I believe I have already cited this link, however I think it would be good to reiterate it: < !--UB http://www.kaibab.org/gc/geology/canform.htm -->http://www.kaibab.org/gc/geology/canform.htm< !--UE-->

quote:

---

Meanwhile, on the western side of the Kaibab Plateau, a process known as "headwater erosion" began eating its way through the southern portion of the plateau. After millions of years this erosional process allowed the Hualapai system to break through the barrier created by the uplifted plateau and rejoin the ancestral Colorado.

---

"Well, then, you'll have to talk to your fellow flood believers. My understanding is that the entire world was flooded for a year and during that time, most or all of the geological record was laid down."
--Exactly, however, despite popular belief on the contrary (for non-proponents) and while it is also logical, this does not imply in the least that every piece of land was always or even for a majority of geologic [flood] time covered entirely with water."I think I see what you are saying, but if you want me to believe that you can erode the soft and hard rocks of the GC, uplift the Kaibab Plateau and create a meandering stream pattern in something less than 4000 years, you have a long way to go."
--It took the theory of plate tectonics 50+ years to become in the majority, accepted by North hemispheric scientists so I am not worried in the least here."And even then, this story does not begin to address the deposition of the geological column at the GC in one year, ... or the preexisting rocks, ... or the fossil evidence... "
--That's because it has nothing to do with the formation of the grand canyon, we are talking erosion rather than deposition of the geologic column. This isn't being argued in this discussion."The only thing I can say is that your fanciful story relies on a lot of wishful thinking and precious little evidence"
--At least we have now moved from 'no' evidence to 'precious little evidence'. ------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-17-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-17-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-17-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-17-2002]{Tweeked a bit, to get page width down to normal - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-27-2002]

I have no time to respond here, though there really is nothing new. All I can do is ask for evidence of a flood and that catastrophic drainage of a lake stranded by the flood actually cut the canyon. So far, you have failed.Is there evidence for many little "catastrophes?" Sure, but nothing related to a global flood and no single event that occurred in the last 4000 years.

"I have no time to respond here, though there really is nothing new. All I can do is ask for evidence of a flood and that catastrophic drainage of a lake stranded by the flood actually cut the canyon. So far, you have failed. "
--Mainstream Geology has also failed... Again:

quote:

---

We cannot say with assurance how running water first fashioned the great valleys and drainage basins of the continents, for the record has been lost in time.

---

--I'm sorry but I must have been mistaken in thinking that you were interested in data and information, seemingly your ignoring my posts is showing that you don't like to use very much of your brain when you comment. I am surprised at you as a geologist(..?)."Is there evidence for many little "catastrophes?" Sure, but nothing related to a global flood and no single event that occurred in the last 4000 years."
--I think you have ignored everything even mainstream geology as taught you, or you again are using very little of your brain. I have repeatedly shown you why you are incorrect in an abunadnce of details, the majority of which you have ignored by posting short no-brainer posts and saying that you are plagued by a lack of time. When you do find time, please use it without just replying to this post with irrelevant rhetoric giving the Grand Canyon a U-turn. I further believe I was correct in asserting that:

quote:

---

--Untill someone presents this type of information, it would be a bit sloppy to assert that there is no evidence for or against a catastrophic outflow from either lake which may have caused the Grand Canyon to be carved.

---

--I've got a great idea, when someone gives me an extensive reply, I'm just going to say that I don't have the time and just parrot the same point all over again!--Your playing with theoretical Canyon formation with the same rigour that I do with Advanced Geophysics.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-18-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-18-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-18-2002]

I know you put a lot of work into your previous post, but what came across to me more clearly than anything else, and this may be why Edge replied the way he did, is that you're still interpreting evidence within a global flood framework that you're unwilling to question and for which there is no evidence, at least none that doesn't require significant twiddling with physical laws a la TB's views.--Percy

Actually, I haven't a problem at all with the mainstream explanation, these are both just guesses. I am quite willing to interpret evidence outside of a global flood framework, edge doesn't seem to like that though. Edge has attempted to argued against the occurrence as my model proposes. In this thread he has yet to give one relevant inconsistency while trying in a few areas, he presented the argument, I then showed him how he was incorrect. Most of the more important ones went unanswered in my two posts when I explained it thoroughly. And at some points, admitted that his previous assertions were either wrong or not quite correct, degrading the argument to irrelevance.
--So far as it pertains to what has been given in this thread, the evidence is in agreement with my hypothesis (eg. the process of lithification and [the canyons] many characteristics)Edge has claimed that:

quote:

---

Your scenario is inconsistent with too may geological facts.

---

--I await his reasoning, and if I had missed something, possibly which he did not have the chance to continue arguing on-side for. As I had stated earlier, 'spill the beans'.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-19-2002]

quote:

---

Actually, I haven't a problem at all with the mainstream explanation, these are both just guesses. I am quite willing to interpret evidence outside of a global flood framework, edge doesn't seem to like that though.

---

You are calling the conclusions of mainstream geologic study to be "guesses"!!! You are saying said conclusions lack validity!!!Time to trot out Glenn Morton's "Complete Geological Column" again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/Let's see the "flood geology" interpretation of this variation of the geologic column.I remind all, Glenn Morton is a former YEC, who published in the context of the ICR, up until his personal enlightenment that the YEC perspective of the geologic record just didn't make sense.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"You are calling the conclusions of mainstream geologic study to be "guesses"!!! You are saying said conclusions lack validity!!!"
--Don't take it to heart moose, just because something is a good guess doesn't mean it isn't very reasonable. The reason it is naturally a 'guess' is that the record of erosion has been erased, we can only make speculations on how the erosion occurred by our own knowledge of how it occurs today or how it would have occured in say a catastrophic manner. The Big Bang, abiogenesis, the theory of planet formation, the nebula hypothesis, and star formation are all very good examples of indirect historical contemplation on their evolution, they only have 'could have's' and physics to construct a working model.

quote:

---

How was it formed?

​

The truth is that no one knows for sure though there are some pretty good guesses.

---

-http://www.kaibab.org/gc/geology/gc_geol.htm[/URL]

quote:

---

We cannot say with assurance how running water first fashioned the great valleys and drainage basins of the continents, for the record has been lost in time.

---

-Physical Geology - Leet & Judson 1965--As for the second segment of your post, I guess that we are leaving the Grand Canyon to float to the back of everyone's head. And yes, I know very much of Glenn Morton, you should see the evo's in chat room, they parrot his stuff worse than I see the YEC's doing Hovind! Its odd, his material could be credible, though the people who parrot his stuff and leave it at that, its just shows you there's a lot more dud's out there than you think and they aren't all on the YEC's side.
--Also, I haven't a care in the world if the Geologic column exists in 20 places on this earth, I say great, that is awesome. Unfortunate folks like Hovind and such who keep reiterating that the Geologic column doesn't exist anywhere in the world are just brain-dead, that's all. I see no reason to argue in that direction.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-19-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-19-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-19-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Edge has claimed that:

​

"Your scenario is inconsistent with too may geological facts."

​

--I await his reasoning, and if I had missed something, possibly which he did not have the chance to continue arguing on-side for. As I had stated earlier, 'spill the beans'.

---

Well, you could start by explaining the FACT that flowering plants, their pollen, roots, twigs and leaves, are not found in strata older than Cretaceous. This is just one of many facts that you cannot credibly explain under your scenario, whereas evolution does so very nicely.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 06-20-2002]