Summations Only

Ooh, let's talk about the hoodoos. When these were eroded, were they soft wet sediment or hard obdurate stone?And there are other "formations of the Southwest" we might also discuss ... Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

OK, let's talk about the hoodoos. For a minute. I'm interested in the ones that are clearly carved out of the stack of strata. I'd post some pictures of my own but I still haven't figured out how to do it so I'll link as usual to my blog where I've posted them.As I say there what's amusing about the hoodoos is that they make it clear that all the strata were built up first before they underwent any carving or cutting. But of course that's the case with all the formations that are carved out of the stack of strata, hoodoos, monuments, stairs and cliffs, canyons etc.I'm still sort of waiting for an "aha" moment to hit some Old Earthers about this.Anyway, HERE's the hoodoo blog post.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The Flood left a ton of evidence all over the earth. It left all the strata, it left the Grand Canyon and all the formations of the Southwest (It's really kind of amusing to think of the separate layers of which the hoodoos are built as each representing millions of years of time), it left the scablands, it left the traces of the huge lakes such as the Missoula and Lahontan and Bonneville, it left the dinosaur beds and the fossils.

---

Claiming that the Flood did things - which it obviously did not - does not make them evidence for the Flood.So thanks for yet again showing that the Flood is only a myth.

I think we are interpreting these maps in the same way. Actually, saying those hatched regions were underwater is the interpretation. The data is that those places have deposits from that geological period or that deposits can be inferred to have been present. From the Distribution Of Ordovician Rocks. American (a paragraph above the image):

quote:

---

Such a map, which can only be a rude approximation to the truth, is constructed by marking as water all those areas where Ordovician rocks are known, or confidently inferred to be present, even though concealed by overlying, newer strata, and as land those areas where the Ordovician is wanting.

---

One of the things Faith (and all YECs) says is that we can't know what happened in the past. Rather than just saying those areas were underwater or land, I just wanted her to look at the data and draw some conclusions, like the scientists do - they don't just make stuff up on a whim, there are good reasons for there conclusions. And the actual data is that there are deposits present or not present (or strong inferences as to such) in those areas.HBD

I understand you have a lot of other posts to respond to, but there really isn't a lot to deal with in my post, just a couple major points.According to "flood geology", the region was supposedly completely underwater while all the deposits in question were laid down. And yet we have these strange distribution patterns that are not consistent at all with being completely underwater. The conclusion that scientists come to when looking at maps such as these is that these deposits were laid down sequentially with varying sea levels and land uplifts. The conclusion that the area was underwater during all those depositions is just not forthcoming from the data.The other point I made was that the crust is quite flexible and can suffer deformation without breaking or catastrophic effects. We are experiencing it right here in Michigan and we have 6,000 - 12,000 feet of rock beneath us!!! Sorry, I probably shouldn't have brought this up in this thread since it is a whole different topic. But, I would like to continue this discussion and will try to start a new thread in a couple of days. You replied to Tangle that you were not interested in discussing the topic further. Would a great debate be better option to limit participants? I would like to continue the discussion because I don't consider myself to be a "compromiser" at all and would like to present my case as to why I think the way I do.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : clarification

You've been here some 12 years and you haven't figured out how to post pictures?Steps:

1. put pictures on the internet somewhere -- your blog for example
2. right click on your posted internet picture and select "copy image location"
3. type [img=300] paste image location and type [/img]

Leave no spaces between the dbcodes and the picture urlsOr you could peek at my codes below And now you cannot say that I haven't taught you anything ... Enjoy

It should be an "ah-ha" moment for you!Strata laid down first (sequentially) --> strata lithified --> formations carvedHow is that done in a single flood event????Ah-ha!!! the Earth IS OLD. Now I get it!HBD

I think the uplift changing the river's speed *is* what was said, not just by me as here in Message 342: But also by several other people, including JonF and RAZD, though RAZD might have been a bit too technical and detailed about it by describing energy gradients and equations. Actually, you've raised this many times, and the response has been pretty much the same every time. Yes, sufficiently great and rapid uplift as to redirect the flow of the river is possible, but it is only one of the things that is possible, and it is not the most likely thing. Gradual uplift and subsidence are found all around the world, but large and sudden uplifts and subsidence are rare.So when we find evidence of a redirected river, we consider a sudden large uplift as a possible cause. And when we find an incised river, we consider gradual uplift as a possible cause. It would make no sense to consider a sudden large uplift as the cause of an incised river. This is an incomplete sentence, but I'm going to interpret it as a question about the physics behind uplift causing downcut. When a portion of the course of a river experiences a small amount of uplift, the depth of the water in the uplifted section of river will be less than before because the bottom of the river is now higher than it was. Assume the uplift was by the same amount everywhere along the stretch of river where it occurred, so the slope does not change, but at the beginning of the uplifted region there will be a ridge on the river bottom that the river will flow against and wear away. As the front of the ridge wears away it will move dowstream.At the downstream end of the uplifted region there will be a sudden but small drop in the riverbed. Water will flow faster across this drop and erode it away. As it erodes it will move upstream. The little ridge at the top of the uplift and the little drop at the end of the uplift are eroding toward each other.Meanwhile all along the stretch of uplift the water is moving faster. This is because the same volume of water as before must move downstream, but it must do it through a river channel of less volume since the riverbed is now higher by a small amount than it was before. The water level will be a little higher than it was before, but not by as much as the uplift. The faster moving water will carry a greater sediment load and will have a greater erosive effect on the riverbed.After a while the riverbed will be eroded down to it's original level and the river will flow on as before the uplift, but now the riverbanks are higher and the river is more deeply incised into the landscape.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo.

I'm with JonF - it is only your interpretation of a book written by men that contradicts science. God's word is writ everywhere in the universe around us, and it speaks truly to us about what really happened. Science is the most precise method we have for reading the word of God.--Percy

Yeah, but remember she's listened to and read a lot of fallible men (or women?) interpreting a translator's interpretation of (in many cases) a translator's interpretation of the original manuscripts.

The surface of the Earth is undergoing constant uplift and subsidence, so anytime there's a sloping landscape it must be due to some combination of uplift and subsidence.A waterfall can be created on a river by a subsidence of the downstream portion, or an uplift of the upstream portion. The more rapid flow of water across the falls has great erosive force, and gradually over time all waterfalls across the Earth move upstream as the material at the point of the waterfall erodes away. For this not to happen would require the material at the waterfall to be impervious and invulnerable. I know JonF has been talking about uplift changing the slope of a river, but unless the uplift is by different amounts along the course of the river the slope will be unchanged. There will be a ridge at the beginning of the uplift and a drop at the end. And again, I believe we have addressed this almost as often as you have raised it. The answer hasn't changed and doesn't bear repeating yet again.--Percy

Aha!Hoodoos were carved by wind and by freeze/thaw cycles, not water. And thus they are evidence of extended dry periods rather than floods.Enjoy.

Hi HBD,Thanks, that provided the missing information. I can fill in the rest for myself, but I don't think Faith can. Here's how I would attempt to make what you said about the Ordovician diagram clear to Faith: I do strongly agree that it would help a great deal if Faith could somehow come to understand that what scientists think is based upon evidence, not speculation.--Percy

Faith realizes all of that.However, when that evidence contradicts the bible it is simply wrong. Or scientist's interpretations of it are wrong. Or something.

I have to agree with you here. Had the Colorado been dammed over the past 10 million years or so the way it is today it probably couldn't have formed the Grand Canyon.But until the dam projects of the 20th century the Colorado was a wild and unruly river. During Hoover Dam construction (early 1930's) they had to construct a temporary cofferdam upstream so that the river could be diverted through diversion tunnels during dam construction. The Colorado blasted through three attempts to complete this cofferdam before they were ultimately successful.The Colorado carries a significant sediment load, which is what gave it its enormous erosive power. With the building of Hoover Dam the Colorado now dumps its sediment load into Lake Mead (since 1933 Lake Mead has accumulated sediments to depths between 100 and 300 feet) and to other sediment trap lakes further upstream.--Percy