Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 11:42 AM
285 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,340 Year: 28,946/21,208 Month: 1,012/1,847 Week: 387/475 Day: 50/102 Hour: 7/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
127NextFF
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 1 of 1896 (713227)
12-10-2013 6:27 PM


I'm proposing this thread to continue the discussion that was going in the Hello thread and hopefully get a more detailed explanation of the reasoning behind her arguments out of Faith. I'll start reiterating in broad strokes the conflicting opinions and by linking my last post and reposting the most significant part.

My position is that the Great Flood never happened based on a wide variety of geological evidence. In particular I have been focusing on what I consider to be very straightforward evidence of sedimentary structures, features and fossils (discussed below) that are diagnostic of an aeolian depositional environment.

Faith believes that the Flood is responsible for the entire rock record. Her main point is that the horizontality of the strata proves that the strata were laid down rapidly and continuously by the Flood with no terrestrial environments existing.

Below I reiterate the evidence I have presented thus far and here I invite Faith to provide a more detailed explanation of her reasoning.

From Message 351:

I think you're trying to say that the shape of aeolian grains causes them to settle in the shapes associated with aeolian depositional environments even though they were really deposited by the flood. This is a convenient fantasy, but not something that is actually supported by physics. The shape of sand does not noticeably affect the pattern in which it is deposited. I'm going to post the aeolian characteristics again for you to respond to. This time see if you can produce something a smidge less laughable than a caps locked statement that the rocks are flat that doesn't address any of the points.

1. Frosted grains
2. Faceted grains
3. Angle of repose of 34 degrees (impossible for sand in water).
4. Various uniquely aeolian stratification types (Kocurek and Dott, 1981)
5. Coarsening upward grains (aqueous deposits, particularly those deposited in floods, display a fining upward sequence)
6. In situ terrestrial fossils

Note that reiterating that the strata lay flat does not address these points. Your claim is that all strata were deposited by the Flood. Therefore you need to specifically address evidence that indicates that they weren't deposited in an aqueous environment. Explain why aeolian bedforms formed in an aequous environment. Explain how the laws of physics took a break and allowed wet sand to be deposited at the 34 degree angle of repose characteristic of dry sand as opposed to the 45 degree angle of wet sand. Explain the coarsening upwards pattern. And again, explain the presence of an in situ, terrestrial dinosaur sitting on its nest. Go on. Give it a try.

I would particularly like Faith to respond to the problem presented to her hypothesis by the existence of an in situ nesting terrestrial dinosaur (Norell et al., 1995 A nesting dinosaur) which proves that at least that section of the rock record represents a terrestrial depositional environment and the existence of cross-bedded strata with an angle of repose of 34 degrees that physical law does not allow to occur in wet sand.

Sigh. During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES AND TIDES, during which ripples and minor erosion and footprints could have occurred to the wet sediments

I'm very interested in hearing where Faith got this information. It seems contradictory to me because such assertions are clearly extra-biblical and yet she maintains the the Bible is the only reliable source of information about geology. She's mentioned tides several times, but this raises and obvious question: If the entire planet is covered by water, where are the tides going and how can they be exposing the land? And she also seems to be imagining great waves that have such huge gaps in between them that the underlying sediments are exposed for unspecified amounts of time. I'm no expert in hydrodynamics, but I'm pretty sure that's not how waves work, even giant ones.

But go right ahead and keep posting your Jeers, that's really all you understand about any of this.

Funny, coming from the single most prolific jeer-er on the thread.

I'm also keen to see Faith's response to Message 378 by Dr. A.

Edited by Atheos canadensis, : Added intro

Edited by Atheos canadensis, : Removed a excellent but snarky pun from the title, removed some snark that got carried in with a quote from the last thread.

Edited by Atheos canadensis, : A stray snark was identified and throttled


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 12-10-2013 6:36 PM Atheos canadensis has responded
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 2:03 AM Atheos canadensis has responded
 Message 692 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2013 6:08 PM Atheos canadensis has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1829
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2 of 1896 (713228)
12-10-2013 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Atheos canadensis
12-10-2013 6:27 PM


Flood Insurance
My only concern and observation is the emphasis of your topic. Note, the Forum Guidelines says in Rule 10:
quote:
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

So perhaps you might begin by explaining your position and briefly mention the contrary position held by others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-10-2013 6:27 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-10-2013 10:18 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-10-2013 10:22 PM AdminPhat has acknowledged this reply

    
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 3 of 1896 (713229)
12-10-2013 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
12-10-2013 6:36 PM


Re: Flood Insurance
So perhaps you might begin by explaining your position and briefly mention the contrary position held by others.

I think I've done as you requested. Please let me know if further alterations are required.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 12-10-2013 6:36 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded

    
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 4 of 1896 (713230)
12-10-2013 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
12-10-2013 6:36 PM


Re: Flood Insurance
Oops. I see in the meantime Faith has started her own thread. Well, I think I've complied with your suggestion for reducing the snark and I think my thread may have the advantage of being somewhat less specific than Faith's. Based on the title it seems like she may wish to limit the discussion to the Grand Canyon. This would effectively obviate her need to respond to the main points I have raised in in refutation of her general position that all strata are Deluvial in origin. Becuase this had become the main topic of the thread of which this is meant to be a continuation I think it would be inappropriate to limit the discussion thusly. I would have no objections though if it were clear that Faith's proposed thread should not be limited to the Grand Canyon but rather to discussion of her general position, i.e. the rock record is the product of the Flood and refutes the notion of an old earth.

Edited by Atheos canadensis, : No reason given.

Edited by Atheos canadensis, : Added some shtuff


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 12-10-2013 6:36 PM AdminPhat has acknowledged this reply

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1829
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 5 of 1896 (713232)
12-11-2013 12:45 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Why the Flood Never Happened thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Please respect each other and have fun. Remember,too that we are in the science forums.

Edited by AdminPhat, : explanation


    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26734
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 1896 (713233)
12-11-2013 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Atheos canadensis
12-10-2013 6:27 PM


Structure of Strata, Grains, Erosion, Karsts
Faith believes that the Flood is responsible for the entire rock record. Her main point is that the horizontality of the strata proves that the strata were laid down rapidly and continuously by the Flood with no terrestrial environments existing.

NO, not just the horizontality, but also the flatness, the way the fossils are embedded, tossed and tumbled and of all sizes and ages in some cases, the fact of the different sediments and that they are so neatly separated and demarcated by sharp dividing lines between them. Also the fact that the strata follow the contours of the uplifted areas, maintaining their thickness over the curves, which certainly wouldn't happen if they'd been laid down after the land was raised -- in that case the layers would have butted up against the contour. This proves that the strata were all still wet enough to be malleable, which proves that they are not millions of years old. There are crosssections showing this online. The following of the contours of the uplift is just one piece of evidence that the various disturbances to the canyon area, such as the uplift, and such as the canyon itself all occurred after all the strata were in place, and this includes the formations of the Grand Staircase to the north, which on your theory requires you to accept the idea of a totally passive planet for a billion years or more, after which an amazing variety of activity just suddenly occurs, all the tectonic and volcanic activity, the earthquakes and so on. I kind of don't think that's what you imagine for those billions of years, but the evidence IS that the activity occurred afterward. Except for the Great Unconformity and the minuscule erosion between layers as Dr. A points out, but I believe the GU occurred at the same time the canyon was cut, and I've often given my reasoning for that here.

So there's some of the structural evidence, and to my mind these structural facts about the strata and the canyon defeat the Old Earth interpretation so that's what I focus on. Nobody really addressed my Experiment at the other thread except Stile, and I'll probably bring his post over here eventually and answer him here.

Because I believe the structure of the strata and the canyons and other formations of the Southwest defeat OE theory I don't try to answer every objection to the Flood. The objections you are raising are of the trees-blotting-out-the-forest kind anyway, the orientation of the grains in the sandstone for instance. How a dinosaur nest survived the Flood, IF that is what happened, I don't know and I don't care as long as the strata themselves support the Flood and argue against the Old Earth. Those other things are flukes and anomalies to be considered at some other time.

So, I'm sorry but if this thread is for me to answer those things, and to give you citations you will probably be disappointed, and perhaps my answers aren't scientific enough for a science forum anyway, in which case this discussion will be over very quickly.

About tides and currents which you mentioned as if I was somehow contradicting the Bible, the Bible doesn't describe the Flood in any detail so that leaves it open to imagining how it happened. A worldwide flood means it became one gigantic ocean. Oceans have waves, tides, currents and even layers. We assume a single land mass at the time of the Flood, over which very long waves no doubt washed, laden with sediments and dead creatures etc etc etc. Waves long enough to spread some of the sediments over great distances, which is in fact what is actually observed of some of the strata.

I'd really like to stick with the descriptions of the strata and the canyons etc.

You also asked what I think of a post by Dr. A: Message 378 So I thought I might start there:

Faith writes:

Sigh. During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES AND TIDES, during which ripples and minor erosion and footprints could have occurred to the wet sediments, but NOT the kind of erosion that occurs to land that is aerially exposed for years on end, which would be visible in the strata from across the whole canyon.

Dr A writes:

Large paleovalleys carved into the underlying Redwall Limestone developed through dissolution i.e. karstification, and likely were enlarged by west-flowing streams. --- Timons and Karlstrom (eds.), Grand Canyon Geology, Geological Society of America, 2012.

Sink holes, caverns, and solution cracks common in upper parts of the Redwall limestone are in places partly or entirely filled with red mudstone accumulated during deposition of the overlying Supai formation. --- E. D. McKee, U.S. Geological Survey, "The Redwall Limestone", Ninth Field Conference of the New Mexico Geological Society

The top of the Mississippian Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon area was subject to extensive karstification during a period of about 30 million years from the late Meramacian to early Morrowan time. This hiatus has recently been shown to be much shorter, possibly only 5 million years, in the western Grand Canyon where tidal and deltaic channels draining westward toward the retreating sea are eroded into the Redwall surface. These channels have average depths of about 107 m (350 ft). --- T. Troutman, University of Texas at Austin, "Genesis, Paleoenvironment, and Paleogeomorphology of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone Paleokarst, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Grand Canyon Area", Cave Research Foundation Newsletter vol. 29 no. 1, 2001.

First of all Dr. A is answering my claim that NORMAL EROSION that occurs on the surface of the earth OBVIOUSLY did not occur to any of the layers of the Grand Canyon in any lengthy stretch of the sort I asked everybody to consider, which of course Dr. A. did NOT consider, but instead he chose a completely different section of the GC figuring it would demolish the idea of the Flood and that's what this post is all about. Meanwhile my request that the undisturbed section of the GC be considered is continuing to be resisted.

Karstification is not the NORMAL sort of surface erosion I was talking about, that would be VISIBLE from clear across the canyon if it had occurred to any of the layers in the section I proposed thinking about.

HOWEVER, there is no problem with the idea that limestone dissolves in water which can lead to the formation of all kinds of holes and caves, and had that occurred visibly to any of the layers in the section I had in mind THAT would be the explanation, NOT normal erosion. This would happen even if the limestone was never at the surface of the stack; why would that be a requirement? If the whole stack was laid down in the Flood the limestone could start dissolving very soon after being laid down, in this case being filled in with the red mudstone sediment from above as it got deposited in its turn, and there is no reason to think it would take millions of years. I'm sure 4300 years is QUITE sufficient and probably much much less, probably days, weeks, months at most. Even they saw that 30 million was a tad excessive and shaved off 25 million. They just didn't take it far enough.

You would not have those neat level horizontal strata ANYWHERE AT ALL had that ever occurred to ANY of the layers.

You posted this gibberish before but didn't attempt to justify it. Why would erosion of one layer affect the unaffected underlying layers?

Apparently I was not clear. I mean that if even one of the layers had been exposed for many years, let alone millions, at the surface of the earth, it would have been so distorted by erosion of various sorts that it would not lie neatly level and horizontal, destroying the appearance of the regular level horizontal strata. So that layer getting that distorted would also distort the appearance of neat horizontality of the whole stack. Then all its gullies and canyons and gashes and river beds and whatnot would get filled in by the sediment supposedly depositing on top of it (although how that could possibly happen under normal circumstances remains a complete mystery to me, let alone how it could happen to all those different layers we see in th Canyon) and we would NOT see that nice straight line between the two different kinds of sediment that we do in fact see, we would have a very rough line of contact indeed, and we could see it from all the way across the canyon. Multiply that effect by many other supposedly similarly exposed layers and the whole stack should be a vision of zigzags without a single neat straight horizontal contact anywhere.

If you think about it, even you must admit that the top of the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab Limestone, is currently undergoing subaerial erosion. Yet without affecting the surfaces of the strata beneath it, which, if flat, are remaining so.

At first I had NO idea why on earth you would say something like this but now I gather you simply misunderstood my statement above which I hope I have straightened out. My argument is that the layers way down in the stack now were never at the surface long enough to undergo NORMAL erosion in NORMAL time -- brief periods of exposure between waves and tides, yes, but never surface the way the Kaibab is surface. It never crossed my mind for half a second that erosion of the actual top surface layer would in any way affect the layers beneath.

That's why I specified that the stack above the basement rocks was to be the focus.

Ah, you don't know what "basement rocks" means, then? As to why you want to except such a glaring exception, I think we can guess.

You would guess wrongly because I actually enjoy that part of my argument, but it gets extremely convoluted and I still want my Experiment dealt with. This discussion has already wandered a long time and I'm tired.

I did think the "basement" rocks begin at the Great Unconformity but I'm sure you can correct me.

However, I believe the Great Unconformity, as I have argued here before, was also created after ALL the strata were laid down, created by the forced tilting and sliding of a segment of the lowest strata by the volcanic activity beneath the Canyon, which had sufficient force to tilt that segment but not enough to disrupt the horizontality of the stack above it, although the entire region was lifted upward, stack and all.

You did indeed argue that. Oh, how we laughed.

Quite foolishly because it's a good argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-10-2013 6:27 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-11-2013 8:12 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 12-11-2013 8:13 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Diomedes, posted 12-11-2013 10:20 AM Faith has responded
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 10:41 AM Faith has responded

    
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 7 of 1896 (713247)
12-11-2013 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
12-11-2013 2:03 AM


Re: Structure of Strata, Grains, Erosion, Karsts
the way the fossils are embedded, tossed and tumbled and of all sizes and ages in some cases

The tossing and tumbling to which you refer could be the result of any aqueous depositional environment. Please give a more detailed explanation of why this tumbling indicates it must have been a global flood. I assume the latter half of this sentence is referring to bonebeds and the mixture of various ontogenetic stages including young, sub-adult and adult animals. Again, please give a more detailed explanation of why such a mixture of ontogenetic stages could only be produced by the Flood. In the last thread you simply handwaved away the fact that such mass death assemblages occur today, but this in fact proves that a Global flood is not the only explanation for a large, disorganized death assemblage with mixed ages. In fact I would argue that the monospecific nature of these bonebeds is evidence against the Flood. It makes sense if a herd of Centrosaurus try to cross a river in flood as animals (e.g. caribou and wildebeest) and have a portion of the herd drown. If it were the result of a great Flood then we should expect these death assemblages to contain more or less equal numbers of all the other taxa that were around.

This proves that the strata were all still wet enough to be malleable, which proves that they are not millions of years old.

False. This proves that the strata were folded, not that they were still wet and that the Flood did it. Metamorphic activity deforms and folds strata even when they are lithified. I'm sure you don't dispute the existence of metamorphism so how do you rule that out when looking at folded strata?

Because I believe the structure of the strata and the canyons and other formations of the Southwest defeat OE theory I don't try to answer every objection to the Flood. The objections you are raising are of the trees-blotting-out-the-forest kind anyway, the orientation of the grains in the sandstone for instance. How a dinosaur nest survived the Flood, IF that is what happened, I don't know and I don't care as long as the strata themselves support the Flood and argue against the Old Earth.

You are trying to handwave away some pretty ambiguous evidence that the rock record contains terrestrial deposits and was therefore not the product of the Flood. This is not a minor concern for you and deserves to be addressed rather than relegated to an undefined time in the future that is unlikely to occur. People have been responding to your points and you should have the intellectual integrity to respond to mine. If my points are really so trivial then you should have no trouble explaining them away. The fact that you were trying to answer them and then started doing your best to avoid them indicate that they really do present a problem for you that you'd rather avoid thinking about. Again, these aren't minor incongruities; they're physical impossibilities if you think the Flood is responsible for the entire rock record. An in situ terrestrial dinosaur on its nest cannot have been preserved thusly by the Flood. Period. Wet cross-beds cannot have a 34 degree angle of repose. Period. Defying the laws of physics doesn't fall under the category of "flukes and anomalies". It is a major issue that you have done your best to avoid addressing.

the Bible doesn't describe the Flood in any detail so that leaves it open to imagining how it happened

So if you admit that you aren't getting this information from the Bible and we know you aren't getting it from the scientists, where exactly are you getting it? Why is your "imagining how it happened" so much more valid than the findings of thousands of people worldwide, including those who were working before Darwin proposed his theory?

Oceans have waves, tides, currents and even layers

True. But they don't expose the sea bed between waves. And if the entire planet is covered with water, the low tide would expose only the tops of mountains which would not explain the evidence of erosion in other environments. I have to go to work now so I'll let Dr. A respond to your discussion of his points for now. I'll see what's going on when I get back. Try to display some intellectual integrity in the meantime and address my points instead of pretending that defying physical law is a minor problem for your theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 2:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 8 of 1896 (713248)
12-11-2013 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
12-11-2013 2:03 AM


Re: Structure of Strata, Grains, Erosion, Karsts
Quite foolishly because it's a good argument.

Is not the quality of an argument measured as its power to sway?

Can an argument be 'good' that never realizes its purpose and fails to change the mind of even one other person?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 2:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 670
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 9 of 1896 (713254)
12-11-2013 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
12-11-2013 2:03 AM


Flood Date
One question on my part before this topic moves further: can we get agreement on what the actual date of the flood is from the Creationist standpoint? I know that certain interpretations yield various dates so I was wondering if we can lay the groundwork on what the 'general consensus' is on the date of the flood.

The date I have seen that appears most prevalent on other creationist sites appears to be around 2300-2350 B.C. Note that Answers in Genesis states it quite explicitly at 2348 B.C.

Faith, can you verify this as being the date you agree with and if not, can you clarify?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 2:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 12:37 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 10 of 1896 (713257)
12-11-2013 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
12-11-2013 2:03 AM


Subaerial Erosion And Deposition In The Grand Canyon
The rocks of the Grand Canyon show numerous instances of subaerial erosion and deposition.

First, of course, there is the Great Unconformity. We should note that despite what Faith says, the rocks beneath this (known collectively as the Grand Canyon Supergroup) do not consist exclusively of basement rocks, but also incorporate sedimentary rocks such as the Dox Sandstone. Below is a photograph of the Great Unconformity.

From the point of view of real geology, the explanation for the Great Unconformity is obvious: the strata were deposited, tilted by uplift, and eroded.

From Faith's point of view ... from Faith's point of view we shouldn't be discussing this. The layers, she says, are horizontal with flat tops. When we point out the existence of the Grand Canyon Supergroup and the Great Unconformity, she explains that she's not talking about that.

We come next to the disconformity between the Muav limestone and the Redwall limestone.

According to Faith, the interfaces between formations are flat. Unlike, for example, this one.

Then there is the disconformity between the Redwall limestone and the Supai formation, a surface the irregularities of which are visible even at a great distance:

This consists of large-scale erosion:

Large paleovalleys carved into the underlying Redwall Limestone developed through dissolution i.e. karstification, and likely were enlarged by west-flowing streams. --- Timons and Karlstrom (eds.), Grand Canyon Geology, Geological Society of America, 2012.

Sink holes, caverns, and solution cracks common in upper parts of the Redwall limestone are in places partly or entirely filled with red mudstone accumulated during deposition of the overlying Supai formation. --- E. D. McKee, U.S. Geological Survey, "The Redwall Limestone", Ninth Field Conference of the New Mexico Geological Society

The top of the Mississippian Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon area was subject to extensive karstification during a period of about 30 million years from the late Meramacian to early Morrowan time. This hiatus has recently been shown to be much shorter, possibly only 5 million years, in the western Grand Canyon where tidal and deltaic channels draining westward toward the retreating sea are eroded into the Redwall surface. These channels have average depths of about 107 m (350 ft). --- T. Troutman, University of Texas at Austin, "Genesis, Paleoenvironment, and Paleogeomorphology of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone Paleokarst, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Grand Canyon Area", Cave Research Foundation Newsletter vol. 29 no. 1, 2001.

... which Faith prefers to describe as "minuscule", because after all 100 meters or so merely cuts more than halfway through the entire Redwall limestone.

Contrary to what Faith says:

Faith writes:

Karstification is not the NORMAL sort of surface erosion I was talking about ...

... karst erosion is in fact a completely normal way for limestone to undergo subaerial erosion. Karst landscapes can be seen from England to New Zealand, wherever the surface is limestone.

We should pause a moment to look at one of Faith's more amusing conceptual blunders. She originally maintained that irregularity of one surface would cause "all" the layers to be irregular. She has now retracted this claim in its full florid stupidity, having been convinced that the irregularity would not propagate downwards. But she is still convinced that it would propagate upwards.

This is a triumph of theory over plainly visible fact, since the large irregularities in the top of the Redwall Limestone are not repeated in the top of the Supai Group, only the bottom of it, which for obvious reasons conforms to the top of the Redwall. Faith should go and shout at the Supai Group and tell it that it's doing it all wrong.

Reading through Faith's gibberish on this subject, it seems as though she really thinks that if a surface as shown in figure 1 below were to be covered by sediment, the result would look like figure 2:

One supposes that she never played with sand when she was a little girl.

Finally, there is the erosion at the top of the canyon. To see what I'm talking about, observe this pretty geological cross-section:

... or this more utilitarian scheme.

Evidently vast amounts of erosion were required to expose the Kaibab formation at the top of the canyon. Creationists require this process to be compressed within about the last 4,000 years.

It would be fun to look at the other strata shown on these diagrams, but Faith wishes to confine the discussion to the Grand Canyon, because if you want to argue for a flood that covered the whole face of the Earth, it is apparently a good idea to look only at one small locale.

As an example of subaerial deposition, let's look at the Coconino sandstone. As we can see by looking at modern dunes ...

... they have a distinctive sedimentary structure which we see replicated in the Coconino sandstone ...

... which also has the sort of grain characteristic of a sandy desert, and also terrestrial fauna and footprints.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 2:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 3:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26734
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 1896 (713273)
12-11-2013 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Diomedes
12-11-2013 10:20 AM


Re: Flood Date
Yes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Diomedes, posted 12-11-2013 10:20 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26734
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 12 of 1896 (713281)
12-11-2013 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
12-11-2013 10:41 AM


Re: Subaerial Erosion And Deposition In The Grand Canyon
Hi there Dr. A. It's very possible I don't always get my point clearly expressed but I really don't think that's an excuse for you to suppose that I could have meant that a sediment filling in irregularities in a lower layer would not have a level surface itself. I don't know what I said that permitted you to accuse me of something like that but being accused of such silliness along with all the other things I'm regularly accused of here doesn't inspire me to enter the discussion. I believe the point I was trying to make is that the upper level would have also been eroded if it had been exposed on the surface in the same way.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 10:41 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 4:56 PM Faith has responded
 Message 15 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-11-2013 7:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 13 of 1896 (713283)
12-11-2013 4:00 PM


Muddy Water
If the flood lasted about a year and deposited 15000 ft of sediment that is about 40 ft/day. Wouldn't an ocean with that much turbidity be a problem for the fish?
Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 9:23 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 14 of 1896 (713286)
12-11-2013 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
12-11-2013 3:17 PM


Re: Subaerial Erosion And Deposition In The Grand Canyon
Hi there Dr. A. It's very possible I don't always get my point clearly expressed but I really don't think that's an excuse for you to suppose that I could have meant that a sediment filling in irregularities in a lower layer would not have a level surface itself. I don't know what I said that permitted you to accuse me of something like that but being accused of such silliness along with all the other things I'm regularly accused of here doesn't inspire me to enter the discussion.

Well then, it appears that you admit that one layer being eroded would neither affect the horizontality of the surfaces below it nor above it. Good.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you, but when you make statements like this:

You would not have those neat level horizontal strata ANYWHERE AT ALL had that ever occurred to ANY of the layers.

... that does leave one with the impression that you think surface irregularities caused by erosion can somehow propagate upwards and downwards through the stack.

I believe the point I was trying to make is that the upper level would have also been eroded if it had been exposed on the surface in the same way.

Yeah, only the surfaces that are exposed get erosional surfaces. This much is true.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 3:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 9:29 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 15 of 1896 (713299)
12-11-2013 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
12-11-2013 3:17 PM


Re: Subaerial Erosion And Deposition In The Grand Canyon
I really don't think that's an excuse for you to suppose that I could have meant that a sediment filling in irregularities in a lower layer would not have a level surface itself. I don't know what I said that permitted you to accuse me of something like that[/qs]

I would assume it was this:

I mean that if even one of the layers had been exposed for many years, let alone millions, at the surface of the earth, it would have been so distorted by erosion of various sorts that it would not lie neatly level and horizontal, destroying the appearance of the regular level horizontal strata. So that layer getting that distorted would also distort the appearance of neat horizontality of the whole stack. Then all its gullies and canyons and gashes and river beds and whatnot would get filled in by the sediment supposedly depositing on top of it (although how that could possibly happen under normal circumstances remains a complete mystery to me, let alone how it could happen to all those different layers we see in th Canyon) and we would NOT see that nice straight line between the two different kinds of sediment that we do in fact see, we would have a very rough line of contact indeed, and we could see it from all the way across the canyon. Multiply that effect by many other supposedly similarly exposed layers and the whole stack should be a vision of zigzags without a single neat straight horizontal contact anywhere.

So when are you going to address the points I raised about the physical impossibilities that your hypothesis requires with respect to angle of repose and the in situ dinosaur? Or do you imagine that declaring them "anomalies" to be discussed at an undisclosed future time (i.e. never) to be a sufficient rebuttal?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 3:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
127NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017