Summations Only

Creationists have been trying desperately to find those "holes" for decades and have failed.But then, they don't need real evidence. Belief is enough for creationists.I don't know why we even bother presenting evidence to you folks, as you just ignore it.Your deity must like stubborn, sullen ignorance a lot, as he created so much of it.

Excuse me, doesn't your model require the erosion, on the Kaibab Plateau, of everything above the Kaibab Limestone? Which of the words are giving you the most difficulty? Apparently you are using the English language in a different way from the rest of us. Forty days and forty nights is in fact a period of time, are we agreed? So you must have some secret meaning of "represent" that you have not as yet vouchsafed unto us.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So if all that activity was compressed into a few thousand years we'd all be dead, Faith.

I found this blog by a guy who likes to play with different kinds of grains, sand grains, sugar grains, etc. It's all about how different sizes and shapes spontaneously sort themselves, also layer or stratify themselves, and so on.It's clearly not as simple as some here keep trying to claim, that there is ALWAYS such and so sorting. Obviously there is not. But my eyes can't handle this much online reading against white backgrounds. Thought maybe you'd like to read and translate: The BlogOne of the links:
http://lisgi1.engr.ccny.cuny.edu/~makse/research.htmlBut there are LOTS of links to follow down.I have a suspicion that some of the information in all these links would explain the way the strata sorted themselves in the Flood. Not that YOU would be looking for such an effect, of course, but you might find it inadvertently.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, we aren't, so you're wrong.

Me and reality, we're always getting it wrong, aren't we?

Just you. Reality and I get along just fine.

Perhaps you could expand a little on what the fuck you're talking about? Well apparently you aren't either. So yeah, it's likely that none of us is going to be more hopeful of putting "flood geology" on a sound footing than you are yourself.But boy, won't you be kicking yourself when some other creationist does it first and carries off the Dwayne Gish Memorial Prize or the Henry Morris Award or ... well, whatever glittering trophy will be conferred on the first creationist to actually achieve something.

No, I'd die happy.

Ooh, I bet you're rubber and I'm glue as well.Would you mind pondering for a few minutes what would happen in reality if all the volcanic activity we have evidence for was compressed into a few thousand years? You will first need to get some sort of grasp on how much there was. Then you can compare that to the known effects of volcanic eruptions of known size, such as Krakatoa.

And I'd die of surprise. But it ain't gonna happen.

In Faith's defense, the mythical flood event may have lasted for about a year or even slightly more. The rain was 40 days and forty nights but the float time was considerably longer at least in the two mutually exclusive stories found in Genesis.What is interesting is that based on the bible stories we can actually do some testing. How much erosion would we see in the rock samples found in the different strata of the Grand Canyon in a 40 day rain? Then we must add in the erosion of approximately 320 days of combined soak time and then the water outflow.Should be a really easy test. We can determine the maximum force for the initial rainfall; the pressure would be equal to the terminal velocity of a rain drop. We can also easily determine the hardness of each layer and the surface area that could be eroded during the flood event for each of the rock layers.I'm sure that the "Creation Scientists" or at least some of their brighter 8th grade students could work that out.

It's your claim, it's your responsibility to support it . Get back to us when you have traced down those links and have the answer.Make sure that answer explains the particular order of layers found in the GC. Sorting of grains deposited by water, by size and density, is well understood and it doesn't produce the order we see in the GC.

Well apparently the guy who wrote the blog doesn't see how his own experiments support a global flood.A couple quotes from this pageHe comments on an article by John Trumble and says

quote:

---

Read this and weep — scarcely a sentence goes by that does not include utter, mind-boggling-numbing, lying, rubbish. I despair.

---

He then quotes the article titled "Richland man sees sandstone proof of global flood" and comments:

quote:

---

Mr. Trumbo, you are welcome to get in touch with me — or any other professional geologist - should the bizarre notion of adding a counter-argument disturb your intellectual complacency.

---

Then, on the same page, he comments on Walt Brown's In the Beginning by saying

quote:

---

Walt Brown, Ph.D (in mechanical engineering) is the father of "hydroplate theory" - a lunatic explanation for everything, the main proposal being that monumental volumes of water erupted out of "the mid-ocean ridge" to form the earth as we know it today. And this happened - you've guessed - 6,000 years ago.

​

and ...

​

There are, of course, many well-considered detailed refutations on the web of hydroplate theory - let's face it, it's not tough.

---

So .... another professional geologist who has studied how sand sorts and layers naturally disagrees with you. Who woulda guessed?HBD

You are TELLING me that erosion flattens things, but seeing flat areas in pictures doesn't prove that they were ever anything but flat so there's no way to prove the erosion did any flattening of something that previously wasn't flat.Also, even the degree of flatness in the pictures isn't as flat as the connections between most of the layers in the stack of strata.Also, the strata that were supposedly exposed would have been exposed for millions of years, is it all going to stay flat during that time?Overall this earth is pretty hilly and dippy and bumpy, but I'm supposed to think the strata represent time periods of millions of years, some of them at the surface of this hilly dippy bumpy earth, then ending up with sharp flat connections between them when presumably some other perfectly flat landscape just happens to come along and lay itself out over the lower one, and they all just go on doing this to a depth of miles over some supposed hundreds of millions of years. You apparently really are convinced this is how things happened, I guess because there's a consensus of scientists on the subject, but as you know, to me it's absurdly impossible.And while I'm at it, let me ask you if you agree with the descriptions at that GC website HBD posted way back there, of the supposed origins of the various strata, such as "coastal" and "shalliow sea" and so on, and when he gets to the Kaibab limestone it's said to have been formed "at the bottom of the sea." This layer is at least a mile, maybe two, above the bottommost strata of the GC, and supposedly it formed where we find it, but somehow it formed "at the bottom of the sea?" I find it hard enough to accept the risings and fallings of the sea to form strata anyway, but it's usually a "shallow" sea which isn't too outrageously impossible I guess (you must assume serial meltings and freezings of the ice at the poles or something? How much of that does it take to raise and lower the sea level hundreds of feet -- to account for some of the layers which are that thick?), but locating the Kaibab at the very BOTTOM of the sea, the Kaibab which according to theory had to form on top of a stack of layers a mile or two deep, REALLY pushes my Absurdity alarm button. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.