The 3 catch cries of uniformitarian geology are equally well explained by the Flood

The three catch cries of Lyellian uniformitarianism are perfectly explained by flood geology:(1) Rivers follow gorges proportional to their size.The same catchments that drained the Flood waters, rapidly eroding soft sediments into gorges, are also the catchments that provide the source for these same rivers today.(2) Layers only form slowlyLayers have been proven beyond doubt to form in seconds and minutes under rapid flow. (See numerous posts on this web site).(3) The formations around the world can all be assigned to a dozen or so modern day sedimentary environments.Firstly most of the geo-col comes from a single environment - marine inundation on to land.Secondly the assignments are simply 'best matches'. They frequently don't match up well. There are no continental shleves around the world producing anything like the scope of most of the flat marine strata on any of our continents. There is no analog to the vast coal fields of the East Coast of USA. Many of the fresh water beds, have land plants strewn thoughout thousands of square miles without any evidence of a river delta. There are no huge chalk beds forming anywhere. It is all simply 'just so' stories. Everything written in these books is very 'reasonable' but they are just stories. Any series of formaitions can be justified by an arbitrary series of environments.Since most of the rocks on land are due to marine inundations we ascribe them to global flood surges. The smaller freshwater beds in-between are assigned to catastrophic fresh water flooding that carved out erosional features that can be approximately matched with the dozens of modern day environemnts despite the fact that they were rapidly formed. This just-so story is no more just-so than the uniformitarian solution.Every submarine fan or river delta or eolian sand deposit can equally well be due to catastrophic flooding and drainage through soft sediment.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-29-2002]

Gene

quote:

---

How fast would they be draining? Wouldn't draining Flood waters tend to exhibit sheet flow instead of stream flow?

---

I agree. Draining flood waters would begin as sheet flow and morph into stream flow as the flow shallowed. This is precisely the nature of the geological column.

quote:

---

What about layers that contain ash and bentonite deposits specific to that layer? For example if the layer below an ash deposit and the layer above don't have that ash, it is highly improbable the sequence formed in minutes.

---

Some such ash flows may indicate that they were laid down in-between water action. It's aslo possible that ash mixed with water to produce ash mudflows.

quote:

---

But why does each inundation bring with it such widely varying fauna?

---

YE-creationists of course beleive that the the lifeforms of the fossil record all lived contemporaneously and to a certain extent in different ecologies.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-29-2002]

EdgeWe argued about lithificaiton issues a while back. We discussed that soft sediments collapsing due to erosion would at some point stop collapsing. What else can happen?! When it stops collapsing that will harden and be eroded by normal processes. How can you be so sure tha tfracturing of soft sediments is so differnt to fracturing of hard sediments? What's your soft sediment model?

quote:

---

And the problem here is what? Do you really think that you are the first person to recognize this? What unimaginable hubris!!

---

I make no claim to originality at all!

quote:

---

This is laughable. How can you have a fresh water flood while the land is covered by a marine flood? I can see that we have had no influence on your enlightenment, TB. As much as we have tried to open your blinders, you continue to rant in unsupportable and unintelligible verses.

---

You have clearly not even heard our claims. The marine inundations that were part of the flood came and went just as mainstream science believes and has discovered. All we say is that these inundations were catastrophic.

quote:

---

How can erosional processes cause deposition? Your complete ignorance of geology is obscenely exposed by your statments. I'm beginning to worry about you, TB. This latest rant makes me wonder if you are okay.

---

Your use of geological terminology must be more rigid than a computer programming language Edge. Everyone reading this knows that erosion produces sediment that gets deposited somewhere! So I'll ask you, how can we have an erosional process without deposition?(!)[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-30-2002]

CoragypsThat may all be true. However, I don't even claim that the edge of the Grand Canyon was the same one exposed 4500 years ago. That is a stawman prediciton. Who knows what the original edge looked like. 4500 years has undoubtedly undermined the canyon and generated hard sediment collapse.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-01-2002]

Randy

quote:

---

So there were soft sediments around before the flood to be rapidly eroded by the flood?

---

No. We of course believe that the vast horizontal layers that cover sub-continental regons in sheets of sediment were layed down during high energy flows as revealed by paleocurrent data. Lower volume run-off carved features into these soft layers as the flow moved from a sheet to stream regime. This explains all of your points. Because of the low volume during the second stage channeling occurs and carves out features rather than removing entire layers. Fast currents have been hsown to geernate neat layers by hydrodynamic sorting. You really should get Berthualt's video from AIG for something like $10. Unless they faked more photo realisitc footage than appears in Jurassic Park, the footage shows actual layers forming under fast currents in huge experimental channels.From my reading, creationists suspect that chalk was primarily formed by chemical precipitation rather than simply organic deposition.Salyt beds? In our scenario the salt beds may have been generated due to precipitaiton due to either volcanic heating or even accelerated radiodecay. I wont pretend this is proven. It is how we would account for it at this point.Ammonites? Sorting would be by ecolocy, morphology, mobility and survival characteristics in our model.Dinosaur/mammal seperations. I know I wouldn't have spent much time on the dinosaur plains. I personally know an Australian creationst who was present as new Paluxy River dino/human trackways were uncovered. They followed the trackway layer until it ended in a river bank. This was removed and there were new dinosuar and human imprints under that. As simple as that. This is a totally normal (but creationiost )Aussie archeologist (ie not a paleontologist) who in his spare time joined the Paluxy guys. He saw it uncovered with his own eyes.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-01-2002]

EdgeWet sediment lying around hardens through compression and chemical processes as you know. You show me the work that shows that the sediments couldn't have hardened since the flood.Like I have posted earlier today, some fractures are post-flood times. The Grand Canyon edge has been undermined for 4500 years and of course has caused hard wall collapse.

quote:

---

Okay, so all of those jaded scientists out there never thought of this?

---

All we are saying is that you have found a certain level of consistency in gradualism and have gone out on a limb on everything. We have done the same for flood geology. Once you go flood or no flood most of the interpreaiton is ideology-based which you guys rarely admitt.

quote:

---

Then the non-marine part was not a flood as you stated.

---

The non-marine component was still catastrophic. Whatever 'the windows of heaven opened' means did something that has not occurred since. The freshwater Hermite layers of Grand Canyon have land plant material strwn through thousands of square miles with no evidence of a river delta. We have excellent eveidcnce of both catstrophic fresh and sea-water fooding. Just keep telling youself that somehow there is an envirnement that could do it today.

quote:

---

In case you didn't notice, the deposition usually occurs in a place different from erosion. I point this out simply to show that you have no clue as to what your are talking about, and that all of the in-depth reading that you have done is gone to waste because you do not understand the most basic principles of science. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

---

You are completely incorrect Edge. I simply assume that the reader is aware that erosion in one place generates sediment in another. You may think it reuires a PhD in geology to know that but guess what: I knew that before I ever picked up my first geology book.

^ The upper layers. The top layers are irrelevant because they are probably not with us any more. And I am not claiming to be an expert on this anyway! The layers hardened in the same way mainstream science accounts for them. It is quite likely that the time detials have never been properly worked out. When you've got millions of years, who cares?

The top layers could also have dried by evaporation. Go do a quantitative calc if you need to. I've got bigger contradictions of creationism to worry about .

Joe TYou can rule out the flood based on that, and dinosuar trackways, but instead I will look at the evidence that the bread and butter of the geo-col was rapidly generated. Most of the geo-col talks of rapidity and continuity.I take your points, they are very good. But do you really pretend that these issues have been carefully considered by mainstream scientists from a flood geology POV? Of course not. You quickly look for the beds that are obviously problematic for us. I can point out dozens of beds that are probnlematic for you too.Instead we point out that most of the geo-col is in favour of the flood and that the catch cries of uniformitarianism that led mainstream geology down the 'eons' path were always equally well explained by the flood.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-02-2002]

EdgeLithification
What supplied the compressive forces? You're kidding right? Thousands of feet of sedmient on top and you ask for a source of compression.And could you explain the following in English:

quote:

---

The incised sediments would simply flow to reform banks at an angle of repose consistent with a material having no cohesive strength.

---

Grand Canyon historyYou find what I said difficult to stomach? It is exactly what one would expect. Soft sediment. Channeling. Lithificaiton. 4500 years of Colorado river. Regular hard-sediment fracturing due to undermining.There is no other possible expectaiton!

quote:

---

You have to remember also that you don’t even have 4500 years to do this. There is no evidence of any such observed deposition and erosion for over thousands of years.

---

Says who? You'll be pretty famous if you have some flood survivor who was there to not record these events. The depositon occurred during the flood, the erosion occurred at the end of the flood.InterpretationEdge, you show me the discussion during the 18th century that points out things even as clearly as this dunderhead biophysicsist does. I have read multiple volumes inlcuding 'Great Geological Controversies'. No-one at that time really looked at the flood scientifically including those who beleived it for various reasons including the fact that no-one was aware layers could and did form rapidly.

RandyI think you need to go on an excursion to Mt St Helens and tread the water laid sediments there. And it's only been 20 years.And why should those in the middle east hav noticed sediments 'disappearing'?! They were drying not disappearing.

Lithification : The layers will flow toward 'the stream' will they? What if our layers are the flat beds comprising at least the entire Paleozoic? Keep working on the kindergarten flood story and maybe you'll disprove it.History of geolgoy: Exactly. The flood was accepted a priori by Christian scientist but they never came to the scientific conclusions that creationists since the 1950s have come to becasue they didn't know that layers could form rapidly.

RandyYour expectaitons are that it wont work.My expectations are that it will.We are both biased.However, I know that I can carefully argue that the majority of the layers could have been laid rapidly and that is sufficent for me. Your problematica are no different than that for any theory.Macroevolution is all problematica!

FineYou have religious-like confidence in science whereas I have confidence in the Scriptures and see science as a wonderful, but fallible, tool.Your primary error, in your own words, is thinking that science = reality. Science actually only gives us raw data and interpretations.Have a good conference.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-03-2002]

EdgeYou may be quite right that the walls sagged and collpased in a wet sediment way. This could still have left a large canyon with sagged walls. After lithificaiton and 4500 years of conventiaonla erosion we get hard sediment fracturing and removal of the slipped material.You can call our stuff 'illogical' but you haven't pointed out what's actaully wrong wiht our sceanrio. The only thing you do is point to a minority of problematic beds. You never address the bread and butter.