Summations Only

"Very deep and very fast" is not compatible with "cutting deep meanders". If there are no meanders to start with, deep and fast cuts straight. If there are existing meanders, deep and fast severely undercuts the walls as the water rounds the bends. Neither of which is present in the GC.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I cannot conceive of what bizarre derangement of your intellect can have led you to write such a thing as this. Could you give us some sort of insight into your chain of unreasoning?

Answer from GEOLOGIST Steve Austin's Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, page 99: And from Wikipedia on "Meander:" ANY VOLUME.

Yea, good point. I should have qualified that statement a little better, like "are visible in the cross sections we looked at in this thread", or something like that. Oh they definitely were affected by many different geological processes, but not of the kind that Faith thinks should be there - they should be visible from across the canyon or from pictures taken from across the canyon. And that is what I have to concede to be true that those kind of disturbances are not visible there. Yea, I don't think she clearly specified the start point of the flood. IIRC, at one point she stated the Bass limestone was the first flood layer, but at another time I think the great nonconformity came before the flood and Tapeats would then be the first layer. I'm not totally sure??But yea, its all kind of a moot point since there is no way that it could have all been laid down in one single event, so even if this statement is true:

quote:

---

all the strata were laid down before any of the canyons, fault lines, magma dike etc. occurred.

---

... no floodHBD

You mean the tilted layers to the left / north? They are indicated on the diagram as identical with the layers to the right of the fault, showing that the fault split the whole stack, apparently at the same time as the raising of the land which is evident to the south of the fault line. The point is WHEN they were disturbed. The fact that such a long block of strata ARE undisturbed calls the Old Earth interpretation into question, since it seems to me one should normally expect a lot of disturbance over the hundreds of millions of years represented there but it doesn't exist. And the fracturing and uplift so clearly came AFTER all the strata were in place it contributes to that same interpretation -- those disturbances didn't happen as the strata were being laid down, they happened to the entire stack as a whole AFTER it was all in place. Again, the whole scenario should call the OE interpretation into question it seems to me. Unless they want to argue that the planet really was that placid for that many hundreds of millions of years as some have hinted they may.I don't think of the GC as a "small section" unto itself, but representative of the layers laid down anywhere in the world, only the GC happens to exhibit them to view to a remarkable depth and distance. I also assume that whatever tectonic and volcanic disturbances occurred there occurred elsewhere on the same timing, strata first, disturbance after. This seems obvious to me but I suppose I may end up having to fight over it. Except for angular unconformities, which have horizontal strata topping tilted or buckled strata, tiltings and bucklings and other disturbances DO happen to blocks of strata as a whole, showing the same pattern I'm trying to get recognized. (I also believe the angular unconformities were caused by the tilting of a lower block beneath the upper block rather than by tilting of the lower followed by deposition of the upper but I haven't found a way to prove it.) Anyway, the only place in the world I know of that the order of things can be seen to just about the entire geologic column is in the Grand Canyon, but I'd expect it to be the rule everywhere.

Stomping feet, banging fists, getting all red and snorting fire from the nostrils, these are the fun parts of debate. When done sparingly name calling can be very effective to get under your opponent’s skin. You can hear him stomping, banging and snorting clear across the other side of the web. But that is not hate.Hate is when you burn people at the stake, fly airplanes into buildings and bomb wedding receptions with drones.Ask any one here. We may detest what you stand for, point and laugh at the absurd things that you say and stomp, bang, snort in frustration for butting heads with a hollow wall, but, we do not hate you.Frankly, for a girl, you gotta damn big pair of brass balls for being in here trying to defend the carpolla you pull out your mouth. And you do a good job of it with all the obfuscating, misdirecting, misunderstanding, hand waving, and outright ignoring of reality.You are bound and determined to make the facts fit your myth if you have to break every law of physics and logic to do it. Which you pretty much have, btw.Frankly, though it is dumb as a casaba melon, putting yourself through this grinder day after day in pursuit of a most unsupportable cause is deserving of at least some respect for the sheer persistence of it all if for nothing else.Think of it this way, Faith, if you weren’t here we’d have no one to play with. I for one love you for it. I understand this is the Christian martyr complex you are feeling, but, Faith, that is on your side not on oursEdited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You've written so much I despair of getting to it all and I probably shouldn't be starting here but hey, it's caught my attention so whatever. That is of course my point. According to the conventional understanding of the great ages involved they SHOULD have been affected by faulting many times during their laying down, and by magma intrusions as well, that would be visible between layers as far more than the usual narrow sills but enough to distort the laying down of any subsequent layers above, and by bucklings and tiltings too, to layers WITHIN the stack, But in fact all these things appear on that cross section to have occurred afterward, and while it IS only a diagram I would trust the artist to be doing his or her best to reflect the reality understood by geologists. Thank you. Also very deep erosion to individual layers should be visible too, that could nearly obliterate a layer if it was really at the surface for millions of years. I've tried to remember to keep excepting the disturbances beneath the Tapeats but sometimes I forget to mention it. I believe the Flood accounts for ALL the strata from the greatest depth to the greatest height but since I can't prove that the Great Unconformity happened after the strata were laid down, or those magma intrusions and all the rest of it, the granite and the schist and so on, I haven't been dealing with anything beneath that point, or beneath the Tapeats layer, leaving it for later. Some creationists regard that level as pre-Flood anyway. Seems to me if strata formed by the Flood at all, then ALL the strata were formed by the Flood, but for now I'm treating anything below the Tapeats as pre-Flood. I hope I've clarified above Well, the "single event" didn't happen overnight, it took some time, months or years or possibly more, but I do think all that WAS part of the disturbances that CAN be seen to have occurred after all the strata -- from the Tapeats to the Uinkaret(sp?) lava field at the top of the GS were laid down. But again, since I can't prove any of it I'm leaving it out for now and arguing only about what happened above the Tapeats. That's still hundreds of millions of years of apparently NO major disturbances of those kinds, tectonic, volcanic, etc. until after they were all laid down.

Austin's wrong. Incised meanders do not necessarily indicate greater or lesser flow rate in the past. Incised meanders form mostly when land under a meandering river is uplifted, or sometimes when sea level drops. No matter what the flow rate is or was.Austin's a well-documented liar. I can provide several examples if you need them. Try an honest source. BUT NOT ANY VELOCITY. Fast streams do not create meanders, fast and deep streams do not cut incised meanders with straight walls, they undercut the walls.

I'll go with Austin, thanks.

I'm sure you will not persist in this preference if Jon provides evidence that he is unreliable. Perhaps you could provide a link to your Austin quote. So far all I can find is the bare assertion you quote. Well, that's not quite true. I also found this rebuttal that points out that the figures Austin uses refute his own point. That site doesn't actually include the figures, so I was hoping your source did. But from the description of those figures it seems that Austin's evidence that high-velocity flows create meanders is rather suspect. And as has been pointed out, the volume of water is not the issue here. The issue is that high-velocity flows can't create meanders.And I'm still curious to see how you address the issues raised in my previous posts regarding the fact that, without refuting the law of superposition, the presence of an untransported terrestrial dinosaur in a terrestrial environment is inconsistent with your model.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : link

Yeah, I can see why. Without liars like him you would be stuck.But even if the flow was higher in the past, that may be consistent with a fludde but it's poor evidence for one. And surface or incised meanders are incompatible with surface or incised meanders.I notice you skipped over your error confusing volume with velocity.

A creationist loony saying something is not evidence that it's true. Do you have any evidence that this is true?

What it calls into question is not "the Old Earth interpretation", but rather your doctrine that "one should normally expect a lot of disturbance over the hundreds of millions of years". Which is your idea, and which is contradicted by the studies of actual geologists.And this is actually quite a common creationist maneuver: you make an amalgam of real science and crazy crap that you've made up in your head, and point out that this mixture is dumb and at odds with reality --- without noticing that all the flaws in it are inherent in the dumb stuff you added and not the science you added it to.

The only thing I recall about Austin's supposed dishonesty is that he supposedly once published a paper under a pseudonym. That's all I remember, it's not about falsifying evidence or anything like that. I would guess that as a geologist he was leery of being identified as a creationist. Seems to me you too would have to admit that if your sentiments turned creationist you'd probably not want it known either because you know how vilified creationists are. But then later he obviously got more courage. But that's all from vague memory, of something that was posted here as a matter of fact and I don't know how good my memory is about that.As for my source, I copied it out of his 1994 book Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe, which I have (but I haven't read much of it I must admit). Googling it gets various creationist references as well as critiques of the book. He answers one critique HERE, and the book is listed at Amazon but doesn't have many reviews.

I didn't confuse volume with velocity.