Summations Only

Hi Faith,No significance can be attached to the fact that you find something absurd. What *is* significant is your clearly demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding combined with an inability to explain any evidence in terms of real instead of made-up physical processes, despite being provided a great deal of information over the nearly 1000 messages of this thread. If I were to respond to your message with correct information I would just be repeating information that you've already ignored many times, so there's no point in repeating the information again.I wasn't part of any previous discussion about hoodoos, but since I assume you've already been provided the correct information many times I'll just briefly say that they're a product of erosion, not "tectonic movement, earthquakes, volcanism, etc etc etc." You won't find hoodoos buried in geological layers because they form in areas of net erosion, not deposition.--Percy

Hi Faith,You're mistaken. We do understand the points you're making. The problem is that you're making things up in your own head that never happen in reality, such as floods that sort sediments into distinct layers, that sort life by order of change toward greater similarity to modern forms, that sort radiometric materials by order of isotopic concentration, and while somehow creating eroded landscapes between layers. And that's just some of the problems with your ideas.Instead of addressing these basic and fundamental flaws in your scenario you just ignore them and repeat your position over and over again, all the while accusing those who carefully read your nonsense and respond with correct information of not grasping your incredibly naive points.You can't convince other creationists, you can't convince those who accept the views of science, so that means the number of people you're able to convince is...zero. Anyone with an ounce of sanity would react to such a situation by conducting a careful examination of their own judgment and taking a second look at the foundations of their beliefs. Repeating the same crazy ideas over and over again *is* very convincing, but only about you, not your ideas.When you finally begin addressing the severe and fatal problems with your ideas maybe we can have a constructive dialog. But as long as you're in "repeat the same thing over and over again with fingers firmly in ears"-mode then it's not worth saying any more than that you are far too ignorant of geology specifically and science generally for your idle Bible-myth based speculations to have any value.--Percy

You're posting a cut-n-paste of your Message 958? Why did you do that? This is no way a response to what dwise1 explained. This doesn't help move the discussion constructively forward. in fact, it does the opposite, as if your goal isn't knowledge and understand but ignorance and obfuscation.The point from dwise1 that I'd most like to see you address is the buried meandering river. Why don't you do some thinking about how that might happen in your flood scenario.--Percy

But this is just you making things up again, which is what you've been doing throughout the thread. The correct information *has* been provided to you before, and you have ignored it time and time again while continuing to flaunt your own ignorance. Now you've responded with a one-liner, again avoiding addressing the profound and fundamental problems with your ideas. i mentioned several of them, you ignored them all.--Percy

Faith might not exactly understand what you're asking, so just for clarity let me explain that you're asking how she might evaluate a sedimentary layer such as one might find exposed at the Grand Canyon to determine what conditions were like when the sedimentary layer was first deposited.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Your point about your expectations that the degree of "disruptions" in the sedimentary layers should be greater than shown in those diagrams was answered a number of times. You gave no indication of understanding the answers, ignored them mostly, then merely repeated your assertions again and again. Your answers were already provided in this thread - asking us to repeat them yet again is just you stalling while trying to waste people's time. If you truly believe all the severe and fatal flaws in your flood scenario are side issues then your ignorance is even worse than we thought. I just recently mentioned a number of them, but you just keep ignoring them. Dwise1 mentioned the buried river meander that could only have formed over many, many years in a terrestrial landscape. RAZD keeps asking you to explain how your post-flood catastrophic flood could have carved a canyon into an uplifted region instead of flowing around it. From the minor to the very significant, you haven't provided an answer to a single problem. All you're able to do is criticize people working hard to provide you correct information while ridiculously asserting that your incredulity based on ignorance should be taken seriously.--Percy

Hi Faith,Your objections are all based upon personal incredulity that is in turn based upon a profound ignorance. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're not fooling anyone. Ignorance isn't something that you can overcome through mere stubbornness and determination. Your arguments and evidence all boil down to what you just said: "It's SO absurd." With no evidence or rational arguments, that's all you can do.You've been provided a great deal of information and have managed to ignore almost all of it. You've learned nothing.--Percy

Hi Petrophysics,This thread isn't about who has field skills in geology. It's about the implications of the evidence that geologists have already gathered.--Percy

You didn't ask Faith "for her scientific procedure to determine depositional environments." You asked, "Put in the field with rocks you know nothing about what is the first thing you do?" In other words, you asked if we could tell what we were looking at were we out in the field instead of getting our information off the Internet or from books. The answer is no, that's why most people here get their information from geologists who have written things down, often with handy pictures and diagrams.If you think someone has provided incorrect information then I think that person would appreciate being corrected, including me. I think most people's goal here is to get things right, preferably the first time, but if not then at least in the end.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

This is the second time you've said this. Maybe someone addresses this later on, but anyway...Fast moving streams will have pebbles and rocky bottoms. A mountain brook is the most obvious example.Slow moving streams are incapable of moving pebbles. Their riverbeds will accumulate muck whose makeup is a function of the sediment carried by the stream, which is in turn a function of run-off upstream and the material in the landscape the river flows through. There should be a few pebbles and rocks in the sediments of the streambed that fall in from the riverbanks over time, but the vast majority of the bottom of slow moving streams should be a fine muck.Mountain brooks with their pebbly, rocky bottoms will never be preserved in the stratographic record because they exist in regions of net erosion. Only low lying streams in flat landscapes of net deposition will be preserved.--Percy

Hi Faith,It's been a busy week, so this is the first chance I've had to reply to this message. You're misspeaking here and again creating the kind of situation that causes you to later exclaim, "You don't understand what I'm saying." The "concept of 'missing' layers" is a fact (not an "OE idea"), and it's a fact you're trying to explain, just as geologists are. Geologists say that missing layers, such as the Temple Butte layer that is missing in many areas around the Grand Canyon, was eroded during a period of uplift, sometimes completely, while you say that the great flood simply never deposited it in areas where it is missing. There's no such thing as "OE thinking," only theories supported by evidence. If you want to actually convince anyone that current theories are wrong, you have to identify conflicts with the evidence, something you have yet to do. And if you want to replace current theories with your own ideas, then you have to show how your ideas are supported by the evidence, something else you have yet to do. What you have yet to explain is how a flood would lay down any continuous sediments at all, especially fine sediments that take thousands of years to be produced and fall out of suspension. If these waves were so large as to wash across entire continents, then why is there no evidence of these waves? Why can't we see where these waves crashed repeatedly into the east side of the Alleghenies and the west side of the Rockies?Your scenario requires that one set of waves be filled with Mauv type sediment, the next set with Temple Butte type sediment, the next set with Redwall type sediment, and so forth. How did your waves become filled exclusively with one type of sediment instead of all mixed up? Where did the calceriferous remains of thousands and millions of years worth of marine organisms come from? How did fine-grained sediment fall out of suspension in the energetic flood waters? Why are organisms most different from modern forms found in the lowest layers, while those most similar to modern forms are found in the top-most layers?You also seem to have an extremely flawed understanding of water waves. A wave anywhere in mid-ocean is not a horizontal motion of water. A wave is a vertical uplift of water, and it is only the wave that moves, not the water itself. Because the water doesn't move, there's no way to transport any sediment across an ocean from one place to another.As an example consider the Japanese earthquake. The tsunami waves it caused were not a flow of water away from the epicenter. They were just waves in the water, and waves are not a flow of water. Waves only become a flow of water when they reach land where the vertical height of water is translated into horizontal motion as the wave falls and collapses onto shore. Well, this isn't true at all. People have told you repeatedly throughout this thread how water sorts things. The heaviest sediment falls out of water first, the lightest last. You can stir a couple teaspoons of soil into a glass of water and observe this effect. Well, you have to decide which way you're going here. Are you going with a theory of successive waves each containing sediment loads of a different type? Or are you going with Berthault's studies of rapid sedimentation that still don't explain how a mixture of sediments can still result in denser sediments being deposited above lighter ones? Since you're not using observations and studies of how floods behave as a model for the Great Flood, then what are you basing your ideas on? As is already very apparent, you're just making things up without regard to evidence or even physical laws. Since God created the flood by miracle, then God could also have by miracle done whatever was needed to make the Earth appear as it does today. Those who believe that God's miraculous power is active in our universe and on our world have no way of knowing what God does by miracle and what occurs naturally. You seem to be forgetting everything everyone's told you about the history of the Colorado which proved a very difficult river to tame (read an account of the construction of Hoover Dam sometime, particularly the part relating the many times the Colorado blasted away attempts to create an upstream cofferdam). The Colorado's immense sediment load turns it into liquid sandpaper flowing across the landscape. Where it comes in contact with rock it can erode down with little problem, the rate of erosion depending upon the flow rate of the water, the local sediment load, and the hardness of the rock.But even a hundred years ago before all the damming the Colorado was puny in size compared to the canyon. The immense width of the Grand Canyon is due to slope retreat. Once a riverbank is exposed to the elements it erodes back from the river. The parts exposed for the longest time erode back the furthest, so obviously canyons will be wider at the top than at the bottom. The parts of canyons that are composed of hard rock will usually have angled sides because the erosion rate is slow, while the parts of canyons composed of soft rock will usually have more vertical sides because the erosion rate is fast. The debris resulting from erosion is visible in canyons as scree. The accumulated depth of scree is a measure of the Grand Canyon's great age. Cracks in the shape of a meandering river? You'll never get anyone to buy that. Next idea: Missoula drained through Washington state. Lahontan evaporated. Bonneville emptied through Idaho. There's no evidence of the catastrophic outflow of any lake taking a course through the Grand Canyon region, and if one had it would have flowed around the uplifted region of the canyon, not through it.--Percy

The reason we know Lake Missoula ever existed is because of the evidence it left behind around 13,000 years ago. How is it that Lake Missoula left evidence behind, but the lake or "standing Flood waters" whose flow you claim formed the Grand Canyon left no evidence behind? Given that they left no evidence behind, how do you know about them? And how did these waters flow uphill through the uplifted Grand Canyon region? And catastrophically carve meanders?--Percy

Let me describe what I think you're saying while filling in the details you left out. You're saying that after the flood and after the waters had retreated from the surface of the Earth that the region around the Grand Canyon had not yet experienced the uplift we observe today. This would mean that the elevation of the Grand Canyon region immediately after retreat of the flood waters was the same as the current elevation of the Colorado River, which is about 2200 feet.Then there was a catastrophic release of water from somewhere that flowed from east to west through the Grand Canyon region and cut the current mile-deep canyon we see today. A mile deeper than 2200 feet would be around 3000 feet below sea level.Only after this flow of water cut the Grand Canyon was the region uplifted.Is the significance of claiming that a flow of water cut the rock to a depth of 3000 feet below sea level apparent to you? Including that the water would have had to flow back uphill 3000 feet in order to resume flowing to the sea? Are you sure you want to claim this?--Percy

If you're getting tired of being accused of making things up then I suggest you begin basing your ideas upon evidence. You always say you understand things you don't understand while at the same time making your lack of understanding all too obvious. You're like a like a little kid protesting that he does too understand his addition tables while at the same time declaring that 2+2=5.The point you seem to be missing due to your lack of understanding is that waves do not carry sediment because waves do not represent the horizontal motion of water. Waves cannot transport sediment. Where is this sediment coming from that you imagine washing across the continent contained in giant waves? Where is the evidence of these giant waves crashing into the Alleghenies and the Rockies? Where is there any evidence at all of anything you're saying? No, there's no such thing as "OE thinking", only evidence-based thinking. Present evidence of a young Earth and we'll all be converts. None of us are married to this non-existent thing you made up called "OE thinking". We go where the evidence leads.So yes, my bias is toward evidence that has been gathered and interpreted by scientists over hundred of years, and because of that my views are shared by huge numbers of people the world over. Your bias is toward your own personal interpretation of Biblical mythology and seems to be shared by no one but yourself. No one would ever say water doesn't sort things in the way I've described, with the densest material falling out of suspension first. If you think someone contradicted this then you must be very confused. You're forgetting again that waves don't carry anything. Waves are not the horizontal movement of water. The water remains stationary and the waves move through the water, which serves only as a medium through which the waves travel.So if your scenario has sediment filled water out in the ocean, how are you going to transport that sediment onto the continents? Waves won't do it.Then there's the question of where the sediment came from, especially for the limestone layers that contain huge volumes of organic life that could not possibly have all existed on the Earth at the same time. Why am I making an issue out of this? My dear lady, how is it there exists such ignorance that can fail to see such obvious problems?Most importantly, and again, waves cannot transport sediment.But let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that when each wave crashes on shore that it carries a load of sediment. Considering your first scenario, how do you imagine that this wave came to contain just a single type of sediment?Or let's consider your other scenario, where each wave contains multiple sediment types. How do you imagine that these sediment types became sorted as they fell out of suspension, assuming you have finally come to understand that the heaviest sediment falls out of suspension first. Berthault certainly has no explanation. But we're not asking you to explain everything. We're just asking you to explain more than nothing. In particular we're asking you for explanations that don't violate physical laws or require miracles just as much as the flood itself. Are you sure you want to say this? Are you seriously going to begin arguing that sand and shale and clay and limestone were dissolved in water to any significant extent and precipitated out? Seriously? But your claim is made out of a profound and determined ignorance. There's no evidence behind it to give it any weight, plus it is flatly contradicted by both evidence and physical laws. There's no reason for anyone to give any credence to your claims. They make no sense, and the reasons are obvious and strewn all across this thread. But it's incredibly obvious how much you don't know what you're talking about. Just look at this now-familiar image: The canyon meanders, Faith. If the cracks allowed the flood waters to scour out the canyon, then the cracks must have occurred in the shape of a meandering river. Will there be any evidence of a breached dam? Will there be any explanation of how a catastrophic flow of water could cut a meandering canyon? If you'd like to read about some of the evidence left behind by the Missoula floods then just look at the Wikipedia article on the Missoula Floods. The article contains an estimate that these floods excavated about 50 cubic miles of material. The now missing layers above the Grand Canyon region plus the missing material from inside the Grand Canyon itself probably represents at least 10,000 cubic miles of material. That's about 200 times more than the Missoula floods, good luck finding evidence of a lake big enough to do that.The reason I mentioned the Missoula, Lahontan and Bonneville lakes is because they all left evidence behind. You're postulating a lake far more immense than any of these that has somehow managed to leave behind no evidence that we've been able to detect so far. Well, good luck with that. You need a lake a few hundred times bigger than Lake Missoula with evidence of its existence that is so subtle that we never noticed it before. You also need evidence of a catastrophic flow that looks identical to gradual erosion over millions of years.So do you understand now that the Colorado was a much more mighty river before the dam building projects of the 20th century? And do you understand that the Colorado has a heavy sediment load that cuts easily through rock. And do you understand that exposed riverbanks will experience slope retreat due to erosion, and that that is why the canyon is so much wider than the river? And do you understand that the scree all about the canyon is the product of this continuously ongoing process of erosion of the canyon sides, and that it is piled way deep?--Percy

I agree, I was just trying to minimize the problems with your scenario. If we include these additional layers it only makes your problem considerably worse. Instead of an adjustment of just a mile, now the adjustment is 3 miles. Instead of your catastrophic flow cutting 3000 feet below sea level, now it has to be around 13,500 feet below sea level. That's even more ridiculous than before.You would only be proposing something this ridiculous if you were failing to grasp the implications of the scenario you yourself proposed, so let me lay it out in greater detail. You're claiming that there was an additional 2 miles of sedimentary layers above the current top Kaibab layer, which is the current top layer at the canyon. You're also claiming that the region wasn't uplifted at the time, and you're making this claim because you understand that the waters you think flowed through the region could not have flowed uphill. This means that the top of this additional 2 miles of sedimentary layers was at the same elevation as the Colorado is now, which is 2200 feet above sea level.But it also means the current level of the Colorado was 13,500 feet below sea level immediately after the flood. And there's nothing wrong with it being 13,500 feet below sea level. The rest of us all believe it must have been far below sea level before it was uplifted, but that that was millions of years ago, instead of the thousands of years ago that you believe.But it means that when this catastrophic flow of water crossed the region after the flood that it cut to depth of 13,500 feet below sea level. Are you forgetting? You can't have uplift occurring before the end of the flood, because that would require your catastrophic flow of water to flow uphill, the very problem you're trying to avoid. You seem to be switching back and forth between your mutually exclusive scenarios. I'm aware that you're saying that canyon may have been carved from receding flood water, or that it might have been carved from a catastrophic flow from a released lake. I'm arguing against your lake scenario. Please don't switch to your receding floodwater scenario in mid-stream. Actually, this *is* what you said in Message 1083 when defending your lake scenario: And you need the uplifting to have only just begun so that when the water catastrophically flows from your lake that it isn't flowing uphill. Right? Cracks for which there is no evidence. This is all just made up, Faith. There's no evidence of any lake, no evidence of any dam, no evidence of any breaching of a dam, no evidence of any catastrophic flow.But the biggest problem is that you need your catastrophic flow to cut 13,500 feet below sea level into the sedimentary layers. This isn't a straw man, just the simple implications of your own ideas that you have so far failed to consider. If this sounds ridiculous that's because it is, but that's your fault, not mine.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Typo.