Summations Only

Because the meanders prove you are wrong.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

Hi Chuck 77Seems you've removed your post.The reference was Grand canyon origin flood - creation.comThe first thing I noticed was this image

quote:

---

Figure 1. A Digital Elevation Model of the Grand Canyon region with an artificially raised water level. It shows the contours of the lakes that could have formed east from the Kaibab Plateau when the GC still would have been ‘closed’. The arrow indicates a more logical point for a breaching event than through the current higher point of the Kaibab Plateau.

---

The arrow is only one of many places that are lower down than the ridge elevation would have been without the Grand Canyon. Another one is south of the canyon in line with the "Hopi Lake" label, and another further south from that. What is of interest is that NONE of these other low points show ANY evidence of water channel erosion across them, even though they are several hundred feet lower.Curiously the only place I can find reference to "Hopi Lake" is in creationist literature. Similar for "Grand Lake" as a prehistoric lake, even though there is a Grand Lake in NW Colorado.I also find it curious that the full extent of these lakes are not shown ... perhaps because to do so would expose the existing low points that would have provided outflow.

quote:

---

The Receding Flood Scenario (RFS) is able to explain a cut through higher ground very well. ...

---

Actually it doesn't, but other than that there is no explanation for why there is NO evidence of water erosion over those lower points ... that issue seems to be forgotten, once it has been used to discredit the "breached-dam theory" ... even though the same problem applies to the "Receding Flood Scenario" (which they have the honesty? not to label as a theory).Then there is this fantasy scenario:

quote:

---

The water follows many routes flowing out of the area from higher to lower regions. When there is a submerged landform, such as a plateau, mountain, hill or ‘sandbank’, the water will not only flow to the left and right of the landform but also over its top as long as it remains submerged. The water flowing over the top will, at a certain point, increase in speed, since there is less and less room for the water to find a way. Therefore some parts of the top of the landform will start to erode faster than other parts or the sides. In this way a channel or gully will form right through the higher parts of the elevation (figure 6). Figure 6. Schematic of how a canyon is carved through higher ground as water levels lower (phases 1—5). Image B is a cross-section of image A at the vertical dotted line. When the water in image A flows from right to left over a submerged elevation it may carve out a gully in the elevation (image B), even though water still flows at the sides. As the gully deepens, it grows in the opposite direction of the water flow (image A).

---

What the water will do is increasingly flow around the obstruction and erode the sides and the top of the whole mound until it was all gone. All gone.Nowhere in the world is there an example of this receding water making a channel through high points the water flows over. Nowhere, not even in those tidal flats.Furthermore, where the Grand Canyon crosses the ridge is not the highest point but up the side -- it rises higher to the north before dropping down to that obstinate arrow location -- so even this fantasy fails by its own argument.And this process -- even if it did work -- would still have eroded just as big (if not bigger due to more flow) channels over the low point marked on the map (and all the others that aren't shown). There is STILL no explanation for why there is NO water erosion channel across this location or other low point locations.This is typical half-truths mixed with conjecture. It fails to explain the lack of an erosion channel either north or south of the Grand Canyon which would have had to have as much if not more flow than the Grand Canyon in its infancy. It misrepresents how flows over landscape of varying heights erode the land, and it does not explain why the Grand Canyon crosses the ridge at a location that is neither the highest point nor the lowest point. Nor does it explain the meander of the whole canyon.It does not explain the evidence.What you have are a bunch of cobbled together conjectures forced to fit the existing canyon location and formation and forced to fit a flood scenario with stuff that doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. It's magic.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Yes, the only reference I could find to prehistoric water in that area was the inland sea in the Cretaceous. That would leave beaches, and salt water deposits ... Which brings up another issue -- whatever happened to the water that must have filled the "Great Basin" -- an area that includes almost all Nevada and half of Utah that has no river outlet. All you have left is Great Salt Lake ... which is not salty enough for the whole basin to have evaporated ...Curiously I was looking at this earlier:Access denied

quote:

---

USA Watershed Wall Map click here for interactive map

---

It's interactive so you can move around and zoom in for greater detail.Amusingly I notice that each of the rivers that drain these watershed drainage systems meander ... every one.Other questions involve what are the lowest passes between watersheds and are there any drainage channels across those passes? (ie between the Colorado river watershed and the Rio Grande watershed).Enjoy

Wouldn't that leave caves and the like? And then there is Death Valley that is below sea level ... where does it drain to?Interesting site
http://store.usgs.gov/...OT&layout=6_1_61_48&uiarea=2%29/.doI captured this shot of where rte 89 crosses the ridge north of Grand Canyon: The contours are at 40ft intervals so we know the highest point is less than 5640 ft.The rims of the canyon are 7250 ft (south) and 7750 (north) ... and the high point of the Kaibab plateau is over 8400 ft ...So the water would need to cut through (7250-5640 =) 1,610 ft of Kaibab Plateau before it gets to the elevation of the Rte 89 pass ...A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel.That's a lot of water to just disappear or magically NOT flow downhill.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : piclink

Ok, but the point is that there is no outlet for water that would have to fill that basin to over 7000 ft and that means some 3000 ft of water. Sea water. Salty water.Enjoy

No problem with this observation Faith, we observe this in many places, some disturbed and others not.We also observe the assortment of particles that make up the rocks, the materials they are made of, and any evidence of metamorphosis and bending and erosion. And yet you too think they represent a "particular time period" -- we just disagree about the time period. No, you can have mixed deposits, such as boulders in sandstone that come from older rock and pyroclastic rocks mixed in clay shale. and some that span several deposition layers, but yes this is observed. Or with the same sediments or with NO sediments (chalk cliffs for example), but yes we see continued sedimentation occurs and we observe that some times the process is terrestrial and sometimes it is marine -- from the type, shape and formation of the rocks.We see fine layers deposited over coarse layers in periodic deposits in many lakes due to seasonal variations in the inflow rate and volume.We observe similar alternating fine and coarse layers in rocks that have lithified over time, and we observe that all these layers contain some evidence of life going on while the layers are formed. We see the growth of marine deposits with brachiopods growing on old shells of dead brachiopods that are still attached to older dead brachiopods in deposits that are many feet in thickness, brachiopods with growth rings on their shells showing their relative ages and from this we can estimate the amount of time it took for those feet of thickness to be deposited.We observe slate layers below sandstone and conglomerate stone, where the slate is formed from clay which is very fine compared to either sandstone or conglomerate. Yep. Some are index fossils and can be used to track the dates of the rocks so that when we see sedimentary rock "A" with index fossil "X" and a different sedimentary rock "B" with the same index fossil "X" we have high confidence that they are the same age even though we can only date one type of rock by some method or other.Oh ... did I mention that several different sedimentary deposits can occur at the same time in different places? Just as we observe all over the world today. Actually it is in accordance with known, observed and measured tectonic activity. So pure fantasy is better? Curiously death is a part of evolution, without death evolution would not occur. Massive death accumulated over massive time. Indeed. Some 99.9% of all known past and present life-forms are extinct -- in several different and distinct mass extinction events as well as over time between extinction events since the beginning of life on earth some 3.5 billion years ago.Enjoy

Repeating misinformation doesn't make it any more valid.Now I know that your flood scenario is false because: The topic of this thread is "Why the Flood Never Happened" and this fits into the topic quite well. And both of those should have been bigger than the Grand Canyon because they would have started with more flow.You have said that at the beginning of the Flood carving the water filled it to the top -- so no matter how you cut the cake there should have been massive channel erosion in these two places.There is no such evidence there (or on any other mountain pass) so your model is false.It doesn't matter what you understand about geology and science this is just plain simple observation: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the topography and understand that flood waters did not drain across these areas at any time.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : photo links

Top 5 Creationist Claims About Grand Canyon: #4 Grand Canyon Rocks Were Made By Noah’s Flood (Part II) | National Center for Science Education

quote:

---

Yet in the cliffs of Grand Canyon, we see exposed cross-sections of river channels smack in the middle of rocks supposedly laid down underwater during the Flood. Here is one colorized and labeled example, which rafters encounter at mile 41 on the river:

​

​

What’s going on here is that the Muav Limestone was deposited in relatively deep water along the coastline of what would become North America. Then over a hundred million years later, the region was uplifted. When rocks are lifted out of the water, they tend to erode rather than deposit; this erosion planed off the top of the Muav (and maybe removed other units as well). Then sinuous rivers cut into the flat top of the Muav, twisting and turning as they undulated toward the sea. We see the remnants of these rivers in the Temple Butte Formation, which is exposed in dramatic half-moon incisions into the Muav. These incisions occur in different orientations as you find them on opposite sides; you’re looking at the cross-section of a twisting fossil river changing its course, much as the Mississippi River does today.

​

It’s pretty hard to imagine how such river channels could form if they were thousands of feet under water. ...

---

Bold for emphasisThat's a river channel Faith. where the Temple Butte Formation fills in the channel cut into the Muav Limestone. One of many such depositions on both sides of the canyon carved by a ... wait for it ... meandering river.Those are layers 7, 8 and 9 in the cross-section we have seen before, and the unconformities here have been pointed out to you before. It is also shown in part 1:Top 5 Creationist Claims About Grand Canyon: #4 Grand Canyon Rocks Were Made By Noah’s Flood (Part I) | National Center for Science Education Which bears reading as well as the earlier part on claim #5
Page not found | National Center for Science EducationHow do you explain a water channel at that depth? How do you explain it meandering back and forth across the canyon?Temple Butte Formation - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Devonian Temple Butte Limestone outcrops through most of the Grand Canyon. Within the eastern Grand Canyon, it consists of thin, discontinuous lenses, and relatively inconspicuous lenses that fill paleovalleys cut into the underlying Muav Limestone. Within these paleovalleys, it at most is only about 100 feet (30 m) thick at its maximum. Within the central and western Grand Canyon, the exposures are continuous. However, they tend to merge with cliffs of the much thicker and overlying Redwall Limestone

---

Here are other pictures of other channel crossings, not colorized: Geologists can explain it. Your model can't ... because it is wrong.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by Admin, : Rerender for mobile usability.Edited by Admin, : Render with a narrower first image for mobile usability.

yeah, but I thought maybe the colorized picture would make it clear.Of course you realize that the problem for creationists is that if the canyon was NOT carved by the purported flood then it is obvious that the flood did not occur.They are trapped into itEdited by RAZD, : .

Not always but also certainly it happens sometimes, and other views of this channel in different parts of the canyon wall look different. Certainly the bottom portions of riverbeds can be shaped like this and upper banks could have been eroded away with the top of the Temple Butte Formation.And it's not me, Faith, but a geologist that made the colorized picture along the delineation between the formation -- a delineation that is not invented nor imagined but one that can readily be identified in the field. Of course that means going there and getting within arms reach to see clearly the difference between two rocks.The rest of your post is an amusing attempt by you to make up something on the spot to explain this formation. It would be hysterical if it were not pathetic at the same time. This is you time and again saying that you can't explain it by your model but you don't think it is a problem for your model: the epitome of turning a blind eye to the evidence that time and again shows your fantasy to be wrong.If we took all the times you have said this on this thread alone it would make for a long post, yet you blunder on sure that you can invent some other magic behavior that defies gravity, hydrology, geology and reason. There is an obvious unconformity at the top and bottom of the Temple Butte Formation and the top of the Muav formation -- you can see it clearly in these pictures. This is an unconformity that makes your limestone cave concept insufficient as an explanation, and this is an unconformity that proves your piles of pancake layers fantasy is wrong. Just like the meandering stream shown by the Temple Butte formation ...Yes that nasty Temple Butte unconformity shows that your fantasy is false ... But you will pretend that it isn't relevant, not important, don't look behind the curtain ... you'll get around to making up some impossible scenario for it ...But you are only fooling yourself.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : ...

Try understanding the point Pollux was making first. You have cited one book and claimed that it was all imagination so therefore all methods of measuring age are imaginary. This is bad logic even for you.But I bet you will never take the challenge to discuss age on that thread and that in the unlikely event you do, that you will quickly make some excuse to leave ... Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1In case you want to try. Or perhaps you would like to take up where mindspawn left off ... Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZDor where S1WC left off ... Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD onlyOr I can start another thread just for you.Curious that creationists just seem to disappear when confronted with this evidence.It starts with a tree in the Sierra Nevadas in California that is 5,063 years old and still living, with dead trees still standing that are over 7,000 years old, and with a Bristlecone pine dendrochronology that extends to 6,700 BCE for starters. Simply by counting tree rings, one year at a time. Objective empirical data.The earth is old Faith, very very old: get used to it.Enjoy

Yet it matches your example for the kind of disturbance that you said should be observable. Yet it is still top and bottom an unconformity in the layers showing erosion of the layers. Quite simply that you are wrong. You asked for evidence of erosion, and then deny evidence when it is provided. You state that there are no unconformities above the supergroup, and then deny evidence when it is provided.There is another unconformity at the Surprise Canyon Formation that also shows evidence of erosion between layers. That's on top of the Redwall formation.That's erosional unconformities

1. on the top of the Muav formation
2. on the top of the Temple Butte formation
3. on the top of the Redwall formation, and
4. on the top of the Surprise Canyon formation

But you will deny it and curl up in your armchair and say you can't see it so therefore it doesn't exist.You are blinded by belief in fantasy ... by your choice.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

Oh I get it. it. it...Some people think a great flood
covered the whole world with mud
pretending to know all
they tried hard to show all
but it was just another big dud.

No Faith, I say you are wrong because of the preponderance of evidence, the repeated occurrences of you saying something, someone shows it is false and you ignore it or make up some impossible fantasy to tell yourself you have a 'reasonable' explanation.Your confusion comes from your lack of understanding, from your fight to hold reality at bay. It's called cognitive dissonance -- cognitive dissonance actually interferes with your ability to understand information that counters strong belief. What was shown was one picture of one of the places where the prehistoric stream had crossed the canyon -- and the information that this happens in several places because the prehistoric stream meandered. Curiously what fills an old stream or any depression for that matter is irrelevant: shocking news I know, but what ever sediment is next deposited will fill the depressions in the previous layer.The one for the surprise canyon for instance is filled by different materials. Says the person with no knowledge of hydrology. This is your belief controlling your ability to understand what is before your eyes.What part of a scooped out shape would prevent water from flowing in that cross-section? No Faith, it is very much what you should expect - a channel for river flow that appears in several places. Because we see such features in limestones that are exposed -- like the White Cliffs of Dover. So? They are different deposits, and the tops of each show erosion. This is like saying that because each layer was sedimentary that there is some special pleading that prevents erosion between their faces.The problem for you is that your scenario with all this limestone would not have any definition between these layers - it would all be one. That this is not the case is another element of reality demonstrating the erroneous thinking in your fantasy.And the Surprise Canyon Formation is not limestone -- so your logic is incomplete as well as erroneous. As one should expect from a drainage channel. As one should expect from a drainage channel in a layer that has had continued erosion. And one would expect another layer of sedimentation to occur at some point. Still irrelevant. We expect layers from additional sedimentary processes, but we don't expect one type of sediment to be more or less likely than any others.It's like throwing a single di -- the previous throw has no effect on the probability of the next throw. None. Curiously your opinion is still not based on facts. It has been pointed out to you before that not only are these unconformities visible, but there is fossil evidence that shows they were surface features. It's hilarious to see you making up ad hoc magical behavior of materials when evidence that you previously said should be visible if the old earth geological explanation of the Grand Canyon were correct is shown to you. Fantasy behavior unknown in the world today ... slurries deposited in sublayers in channels as it carves out material that magically disappears just like the rubble from the Great Unconformity process you describe.Hilarious and pathetic. Why geologists should be unable to describe wet sedimentation in an old river course is a real mystery Faith ... ... just because it is only seen almost anywhere? There are any number of places in the world where you can see river channels carved by meandering streams with old sections of riverbed that have been filled in when the river changed course and annual floods deposited sediments. It is not the sediment cutting the channel Faith, it is sediment filling the channel eroded previously by the river. It appears that your inability to grasp simple sequences of events is as unlimited when it comes to factual processes as it is when making up fantasy sequences.Surface is deposited ...
Erosion occurs ...
Rivers form ...
Rivers behave like ... rivers and change channels as they behave like ... rivers when meandering ...
Later sedimentation occurs and covers both the old riverbeds and the land beside it ...
More erosion occurs ...
More sedimentation occurs ...
New rivers form ...
the new rivers behave like ... rivers and change channels as they behave like ... rivers when meandering ...
Later sedimentation occurs and covers both the old riverbeds and the land beside it ...That is all that is necessary to explain the Mauv Formation, the Temple Butte Formation, the Redwall Formation and the Surprise Canyon formation. Simple processes you can see happening in the world today. Today cuts into the past all over the world Faith: that is what erosion is. What you cannot have is the past cutting into the present. A riverbed that represents a period in time, a period when erosion was occurring into the sedimentary layer below it, just as (SHOCKING NEWS) rivers do around the globe today. Hydrological flow characteristics to be expected in a stream\river section, showing how river flow action should affect the shape of the channel ... and an actual factual section of the same basic shape. Curiously there are other shapes that we also see: Section at a bend and a plan view showing how the riverbed would change sections along its length. Asymmetrical section in Temple Butte formation.Now I kind of have to admire your ability to make up stuff, as you certainly don't do it by half-measures. You go whole hog for denial of reality. I actually don't know how to explain it, but as I say, the moon is made of blue cheese, from cows jumping over it, and not by some jack and jill fantasy.Riiiiight.You don't know how geology works. You don't know how hydrology works. You don't know how the real world works.Enjoy.

Religious fanatics are already here, they just happen to be christian fanatics (you know, those people that blow up women's clinics and shoot doctors because of fanatical religious beliefs).It's the fanaticism that is dangerous, no matter the source.Enjoy