Summations Only

It was all launched by powerful forces and the momentum gradually slowed down. If someone gives you a push in a wagon on a level surface, you'll go fast at first and then slow down and finally stop.

Basalt is harder than sandstones and limestones. This is how flood flow works That is not how flood flow works ... and why would it pick a high ridge to flow down on?Water does not flow down from its surface and then out somewhere as if there were a huge drain that opened up -- or is there some other magic involved?When a dam breaks the water from the surface moves fastest to the break, the water at the bottom hardly moves at all.Again, this is basic hydrodynamics.Enjoy

Sorry -- it's gcrim.pdfbut here is a .png that Jon made from it: Enjoy

Which are ... ?Yes due to friction which is heat dissipating into the parts ... where did the heat go?Enjoy

Nope. Your beliefs are incorrect.The dating for those Palouse area Scablands floods is pretty good. Those dates are based on empirical evidence that can be confirmed in quite a number of ways.The dating for your global flood varies from 4,350 years ago to 65 million years ago to even 250 million years ago. You creationists are just making it up as you go to try to conform to your a priori beliefs. You have no evidence to support you or you'd be able to settle on a date. Various creationists claiming a range of >250 million years shows your lack of evidence, and that you folks don't even care about evidence.You shouldn't be in the science forums--you have no respect for the scientific method and little to no scientific knowledge. And you automatically put your ancient tribal myths over the scientific knowledge we take the time to post for you.What a joke!

Roughly 4300 years is a pretty standard view by those who calculate from biblical information. Anything much outside that range isn't taking the Bible's information as the standard.Coyote, you are up against something God said. Some people seem to find it easy to jettison what God said for what you all say, I'm not one of them, thanks to God and I pray He continues to keep me faithful to that knowledge.So we work FROM the Bible when it comes to dating. But all the things about how the Flood happened are speculations, just as OE theory and the ToE are. There are a few hints in the Bible and there are some observations by science that we can use so we use them.Cheers.

Sorry RAZD I can't follow that post.But you say there are differences between the Palouse and the GC as uf that should be news to me. Didn't I say that myself?

OK. So all those claiming dates of 65 million years ago are wrong? And all those claiming dates of 250 million years ago are wrong?Oh, and where did your deity specify an exact date? I must have missed it.But if we are dealing with a mere 4300 years ago, then we are dealing with soils, not geological strata! All those hundreds of posts about the Grand Canyon are irrelevant. The dirt in your back yard will almost certainly contain soils dating to that time period, and they are probably not very deep. I'd bet that in most areas you'd find that time period within about 100-150 cm of the surface (depending on the sedimentation rate). All of those things about how the flood happened are myths and speculations based on myths followed by speculations on the speculations. You don't allow real world evidence to intrude upon your beliefs, so you have no way of judging whether your myths--or which of your myths--are correct.The idea of an old earth is based on evidence from many different fields, all coming together to form a cohesive whole--consilience it is called. Those individual data points can be tested and so far have been made more accurate with each test.To argue against an old earth means you have to do what the RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth) boys did. They spent over a million dollars of creationist money to prove that the earth is young, but ended up with evidence showing that the problems are insurmountable at this time. From "Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review" by Randy Isaac:

The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as groundbreaking results. This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims.

​

In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.

Since this whole issue deals with dating, not geological strata, here are a number of articles about the RATE study and its failure to confirm a young earth.Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
Assessing the RATE ProjectDo the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
Softwaremonkey - Menang Judi Slot Online Memakai Trik Tersembunyi Part 1
Softwaremonkey - Menang Judi Slot Online Memakai Trik Tersembunyi Part 2RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? by Kirk Bertsche:
RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating:
RATE and Age of the Earth - Radiometric DatingA Dialogue about RATE:
RATE Dialogue - in PSCF (March 2008)

Yes, that makes a major difference in how the two areas were sculpted. Stiill damp sedimentary layers would carve a LOT easier than basalt, accounting for the huge width and depth of the GC. Again, you can't compare a worldwide Flood to "a flood." Again, this ain't standard "flood flow."The idea here is this: The strata were laid down all very neat and horizontal to a depth of three or four miles, all neat and smooth and flat at the top over thousands of square miles in the Southwest and in fact genrally all over the world.My best guess is that the stack of strata would still be standing in the Flood water at that point, which would cover the highest layer to some depth, how deep I don't know, but the top level wasn't exposed at that point, it was under water. But another possible scenario is that a huge standing lake to the northeast was uplifted at the same time as the GC area, in the tectonic movement that built the Rockies, and overflowed its bounds. I have a diagram somewhere on my blog of the drainage area above the GC, a huge area.After they were all laid down THEN began the tectonic and volcanic disturbances, which of course involved earthquakes, tilting of strata in some places, uplifting of land in some places, the upwelling of magma from deep beneath the strata, and so on and so forth.In the GC area what those disturbances did is trigger the magma release beneath the canyon and tilt the Supergroup while raising the canyon area itself, keeping at least parts of the stack of strata above the Supergroup neat and horizontal or at least parallel which is illustrated on the cross sections, and the uplift itself is represented on the cross sections by that rounded height in the GC area. The whole northern Arizona region may have undergone uplifting, fine, but I focus on this particular one illustrated in the canyon area.Yes, this is a different scenario from OE theory and I know the arguments. I'm just spelling out my version of the YEC view because you don't seem to have a very good idea of it.The strata clearly follow the contour of that uplift showing that they were all in place when the uplift occurred. There is evidence that there had been at least another mile of strata above the current rim, which is represented in the Grand Staircase area. All that washed away in the Grand Canyon area, and broke up into the "stairs" and canyons of the GS area as well.All this occurred at the same time the Flood water was starting to drain away, the sea floor dropping, while tectonic movement was pushing up strata and so on and so forth. The mounded uplift, according to my version of the YEC view, caused strain at the very top of the strata (at the height of the highest layer in the Staircase area, some two miles at least above the Supergroup/Great Unconformity) due to the stretch of the rounding effect, and cracks developed on the south side of the mound running east-west. Probably very LONG cracks as the mounded area still seems to me to be basically a very long sausage shape roughly over the length of what eventually did become the canyon with its zigzags and all.The water that was standing over the whole stack of strata would find its way into those cracks, just as it was doing up in the Grand Staircase area too and indeed all over the Southwest. In the GC area it was cutting into a mound and the strata would be breaking up and the cracks would be widening as the water kept flowing into them, carrying chunks of the breaking strata with it, scouring out the canyon stage by stage along quite a bit of its current length.That's how I'm getting that the water flowed in from all sides, because it's flowing into these longitudinal cracks in the sausage-shaped mounded uplift. It had to break up strata at least a mile deep over the Kaibab, leaving the Kaibab as the upper rim of the eventually carved-out canyon. It didn't just flow in from the east in other words, in the direction the river eventually took. it scoured out the width and the depth of the canyon from all sides at once, but the water exited west and eventually, weeks later? months later? years later? centuries later? settled down to a river, a fast and deep powerful river at first, then much later the river we now see. "Down from" what "surface" are you talking about?The water was starting to drain away, west and south from this area, and the whole canyon length must have been cracked in the upper strata and the water flowed west and eventually out into California. There is an east-west slope too and the water from the western area would have started flowing away already so the more easterly water followed suit. Where did it go? The usual theory is that the sea floor dropped at the end of the Flood and that's where all the water went. In this case the water at the bottom had to flow into the cracks because that's where the cracks were. Fill the tub with water and then pull the plug. The bottom water runs out first. The only dam type occurrence there might have been is if the standing lake was the cause of the scouring out of the canyon, as it spilled over its rims as the tectonic movement raised that area. Then it would have been a lot of rushing water from above that flowed into those cracked strata from all sides. But not applicable to this particular scenario.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

God trumps it all. Too bad some Christians give in so easily.

It's either too big or too small. Big I can make out topological lines but only in very small sections at a time, small I can't make out those lines at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As it turns out, I am quite happy with someone believing that. If someone says that they believe that the Biblical flood happened because it says so in a bible they believe is inerrant, and that the science and all the scientists must be wrong, and then leave it there, then fair enough from my perspective. I don't share your belief - I think it's self-delusion, but hey, your beliefs are yours.As I've said before, where I get het up is where the person with that belief then tries to argue in detail to refute and (the holy grail) to disprove the evidenced science. (Or worst of all, tries to get their belief taught as "science" to children).However, what's just occurred to me is this: why is it so important to you, Faith, to try to refute and disprove the science ? Is your faith such that you need the science to be disproved ? If you believe that God trumps it all, why the need to refute or disprove the science ?

What information is that Faith. Last I saw it depended on a lot of assumptions. could you do a thread on the actual calculation of age from biblical evidence?You know that there are several trees that have lived longer than that in the white mountains.

• the "Methuselah" tree, with an estimated germination date of 2832 BCE
• the "Prometheus" tree (aka WPN-114), with a measured age of 4862 when cut down in 1964 for research, however this is a minimum age due to the core of the tree is missing, giving it a minimum germination date of 2898 BCE (but likely older).
• the "Schulman" tree(my name for the tree because Schulman took the core and he was a pioneer in dendrochronology in the area), with an estimated germination date of 3051 BCE
• the "Ancient Sentinels" - standing dead trees, as old as 7,000 years, no information on their germination dates at this point.

But this is another topic and you can see more at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 - the evidence for an old earth in annual counts.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : trees older

What is the cause for the differences Faith -- why are they different?and not a little different they are a lot different. Look at the detail the the Grand Canyon map -- the lines are lines of constant elevation at 25 meter (~82 foot) intervals. The bunched lines show where it is steep (cliffs) and the spaced lines show where it is flattish (plateaus) and you can see the meanders in the cliffs as well as the river.Enjoy

hold down key and hit the <+> key to make bigger or the <-> key to make smaller. Scroll around to follow the river -- you can use arrow buttons or the window slide buttons. If you download it (save as) then it won't be popping back and forth between big and small.Spend some time on the tributaries too, not just the canyon, particularly Meadow Creek the big one to the south -- how does it still connect and flow into the Grand Canyon when it would be running uphill with the uplift?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : frack coding thanks Jon