Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 100 (20915)
10-27-2002 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by edge
10-27-2002 5:47 PM


^ Correct Edge. I simply haven't studied 3D topographical maps of the Grand Canyon Paleozic to that extent!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by edge, posted 10-27-2002 5:47 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by edge, posted 10-28-2002 2:58 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 94 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-28-2002 3:47 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 93 of 100 (20949)
10-28-2002 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tranquility Base
10-27-2002 6:44 PM


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???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-27-2002 6:44 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 94 of 100 (20951)
10-28-2002 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tranquility Base
10-27-2002 6:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Correct Edge. I simply haven't studied 3D topographical maps of the Grand Canyon Paleozic to that extent!
I doubt such things even exist, at least beyond what can be inferred from the Grand Canyon rock exposures. But hey, maybe someone's done seismic profiles of the area.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-27-2002 6:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-28-2002 6:16 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 100 (20957)
10-28-2002 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Minnemooseus
10-28-2002 3:47 PM


^ Exactly what I suspected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-28-2002 3:47 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by edge, posted 10-29-2002 10:20 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 96 of 100 (21057)
10-29-2002 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Tranquility Base
10-28-2002 6:16 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-28-2002 6:16 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-29-2002 10:28 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 100 (21059)
10-29-2002 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by edge
10-29-2002 10:20 PM


^ 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by edge, posted 10-29-2002 10:20 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by edge, posted 10-29-2002 10:32 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 99 by Randy, posted 03-02-2003 9:50 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 98 of 100 (21060)
10-29-2002 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Tranquility Base
10-29-2002 10:28 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-29-2002 10:28 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 99 of 100 (33501)
03-02-2003 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Tranquility Base
10-29-2002 10:28 PM


seismic maps and
^ 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.
I think the web page that Bill referenced in the new Grand Canyon thread speaks to the feasibility of the ad hoc assumption that there was "high ground" sufficient for the permian animals that made the tracks in the Coconino sandstones to escape the flood while thousands of feet of sediment were being deposited so that they could come in between the 300 foot deep sand carrying water that supposedly made the "sand waves" that comprise the Coconino Sandstones and leave tracks that got preserved.
Revisiting the Grand Canyon
quote:
With the new eyes provided by seismic-sequence stratigraphy, the accuracy of the sequence model, involving approximately 15,000 feet of sedimentary rocks exposed at seismic scale continuously for a distance of over 40 miles, is compelling.
Any "high ground" in the area lies on top of thousands of feet of flood deposits. There is no outcrop of "Genesis Rock" that the animlas could have lived on. It certainly doesn't seem logical to me that animals could be living on sedimentary "high ground" as that ground was being deposited but then Snelling and Austin say the animals that left the tracks were running up the sand dunes to escape the water that was depositing the dunes they were running up so I suppose it is not too illogical for a YEC.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-29-2002 10:28 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Randy, posted 05-11-2005 8:14 AM Randy has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 100 of 100 (206990)
05-11-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Randy
03-02-2003 9:50 AM


Re: seismic maps and
I just dropped by. Since we have YECs still claiming that the Coconino Sandstones with their famous animal tracks are flood deposits I thought I would bump this old thread on the subject.
The OP details the absurdity of Snelling and Austin's claims about the Coconinos. There web page does not give startling evidence for Noah's flood but startling evidence for the ridiculous lengths that YEC must go to try to interpret the Grand Canyon sediments as flood deposits.
Below is another link to a page detailing the impossibility of a flood depositing the sandstones.
http://www.answersincreation.org/coconino.htm
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Randy, posted 03-02-2003 9:50 AM Randy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024