Summations Only

You're a riot.

You think that some animals survived for a while during the Flood to make tracks. But trackways don't occur only near the bottom of the rock record as you would expect if they had survived the early days of the Flood only to be drowned later on. Tetrapod trackways in fact appear all the way to the top of the record, which is inconsistent with your model. How did the track-makers survive as water covered the land completely and how were they able to make tracks if the water was high enough to cover mountains? Remember that tetrapod tracks appear high in the record, not near the bottom where you'd expect if they were created near the beginning of the Flood. Hmm, we already went through this and you were forced into the position of having to deny the law of superposition in order to support the assertion that the Flood could have buried that dinosaur. Lets review:- The dinosaur is sitting undisturbed on its nest. I gave you the evidence proving that it was undisturbed.-The undisturbed nature of the brooding dinosaur shows that it wasn't buried in any catastrophic deluge-You pointed out that scientists proposed a mechanism whereby the surface layer of sand was saturated by rain and, thus destabilized, slid down and buried the dinosaur. You claimed this was consistent with the Flood model-I pointed out that the proposed mechanism only works in a terrestrial environment, which you accepted-You said that it could have been buried in the beginning of the Flood when it had just started to rain, thus destabilizing the sand-I pointed out that we should then expect to find the dinosaur near the bottom of the rock record rather than near the top.-Your only response to this was to deny superposition and, when pressed to support this denial, to declare that you had once again lost interest in the topic.You even said And now here you are again saying that it was buried by the Flood despite the fact that the in situ nature of the animal and its nest as well as the fossil's position high in the rock record proves that it was not deposited by any stage of the Flood . So have you come up with a refutation of the law of superposition or did you forget that you already conceded the point?

Touche', You got me Except I never mentioned what I "believed" and the amount of sediment being laid down was an assumption based on the flood scenario. It is clear from the text that after the 40 days and nights of rain all living things that moved on the face of the earth died. That fact is mentioned in verses 21 - 23. Only Noah and those on the ark were left alive. After the death of all living was declared, then verse 24 indicates that the water prevailed for 150 days. At the end of 150 days the waters were abated (8: 3) so that the ark came to rest on Ararat.So ... we have lizard-like animals running around in the Coconino sandstone, which is very far up the GC "stack" (which means it was deposited towards the very end of the flood depositional period). Whether this layer was put down underwater or sub-aerially is actually irrelevant to the problems this presents. There are a couple of options.1. All 3600 feet of sediment was scoured off the land and deposited in the Grand Canyon area in 40 days and these lizards were some of the last holdouts and managed to survive the massive deluge (unlike any other flood ever imagined) for 40 days and then run along the bottom while that layer was being rapidly (understatement) being deposited.2. We don't use a clear reading of the text and allow for some animals to survive past the 40 days and nights and survive up to 150 days. If we take this view, then the 150 days of deposition chart I posted is a good approximation of the time frame involved in depositing the GC layers. That brings us back to 11,000 cu. mi.of sediment in 17 days. That means that for every hour for 17 days an average of 8 inches of sediment is being deposited ... and these lizards are running up these sand banks. Also it must be fairly close to the surface because these appear to be land dwelling creatures (they breath air). And don't forget, this rate of sedimentation has been going on for the entire 150 days. And these lizard-like creatures have been treading water for well over 100 days without food (maybe they were able to eat floating carrion).So, yea ... I'm incredulous. I don't know what else to say. Even if this point is valid, and the whole stack was laid down before there were any disturbances (which you have been repeatedly shown that there were major disturbances between the layers) you just can't look at this one piece of the puzzle and think that it resolves all the issues.You see, that is what I believe to be the problem with YE creationists; their ideas actually serve to move people AWAY from the Bible rather than towards its. At the beginning of this discussion, I would have said that I was about 95% certain there was not a global flood; there was still a small amount of openness I had that there could be misinterpretation of the data and that there actually could be evidence provided of a global flood. However, now I would say I am 99.9% certain that there was not a global flood. And it was NOT the "old earth atheists" that convinced me of that ... it was you! (more precisely, your arguments).Faith, I know you mean well. I respect your perseverance and commitment, I really do (and I have seen others on here express those same sentiments). I have never called you a liar because I really don't think you are a liar. But I wish you could see how harmful this line of reasoning actually is to the Word of God; to the faith. There is no "compromise" needed. God wants us to abandon "wrong thinking" not embrace silly notions. I know you think you are defending God's Word, but it really isn't working out that way.I guess I'll stop there.HBD

JonF's reply was sincere, Faith. You're claiming infallibility, and we want to understand on what basis. How and when did you become aware of this infallibility? If another person with a different Biblical interpretation on this subject claimed infallibility, how would you decide whose infallibility was greater?Anyone on the creationist side want to comment on Faith's claim to infallibility in interpreting the Bible about the flood?--Percy

It appears that Faith is incapable on introspection on any subject.Certainly her many claims of certainty about what is possible or impossible while acknowledging she knows nothing about the subject calls her infallibility on any subject into question.

To add some evidence to my incredulity, here is a paper where author Timothy K. Helble does some calculations for the amount of sediment needed to be transported by the flood waters to deposit the Coconino sandstone using Steve Austin's Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe . A Reality Check on Flood Geology - (Published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

quote:

---

A second way to demonstrate the problem posed
to Flood geology by sediment transport is to calculate
the rate needed to move 42,000 km³ of sand
across the 1,600 km boundary in twelve days. The
computations are straightforward as shown below.
What total volumetric rate in m³/sec would be required
to move 42,000 km³ of sand across any boundary in
twelve days?

​

4.1 x 10⁷ m³ / sec *

​

What sediment transport rate in m³/sec/m would be
required to move 42,000 km³ of sand across the 1,600 km
boundary in twelve days?

​

25 m³ / sec / m *

​

What sediment transport rate in kg/sec/m would be
required to move 42,000 km³ of sand across the 1,600 km
boundary in twelve days?

​

4.8 x 10⁴ kg / sec / m *

​

These calculations indicate a slab of sand 25 m high,
1,600 km wide, and 1,000 km long would have to be
continuously sliding southward across the boundary
at one meter per second to form the Coconino Sandstone
in twelve days. This corresponds to a sediment
transport rate of 4.8 x 10⁴ kilograms (48 metric tons)
per second per meter!

---

* See paper for actual calculations they were too difficult to type out and would not cut & paste properly.** See the paper for the assumptions he uses in his calculations

quote:

---

An initial reaction to these findings might be to suspect
that the calculations were set up to produce
results unfavorable to Flood geology. Actually, at
least nine assumptions were made in favor of the
YEC position.

---

Can you see why I'm skeptical?HBDABE: One additional quote from the paper

quote:

---

It becomes clear that Flood geology is not just another way of, as frequently maintained by YEC leaders, looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions. It also becomes clear that the YEC ministries are placing Christians in the unfair position of having to choose between biblical authority and straightforward reasoning from observation of God’s created world.

---

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

You have been accused of murder. Details at the crime scene seem to point to you. A scarf was accidentally left behind that is identical to one you own and you can't seem to find yours. Other details of a similar nature point to you.
But to your relief the DNA evidence comes back clearing you as a possible suspect. The case against you has been falsified.
Does it make any sense for the prosecutor to find motives now as to why you might want this person dead? So explain to me now how the principal of falsification is "a ploy" to eliminate truth. Is it *truth* that you were the murderer despite the DNA evidence? If the evidence cleared you, are you yet the *true* murderer? After all, you have a neighbor that strongly believes, even has a strong conviction felt deep within her soul, that you committed the crime. She obviously is deluded but curiously(credit to RAZD) she rants on about how those who accept the evidence are deluded because frankly she doesn't understand the DNA evidence and strongly believes that something simply must be wrong with it.

We are well aware of your crack hypothesis Faith. We just have trouble matching it up to reality and empirical evidence.Here is a map of the area again, and this time I have drawn ovals around the fault lines that exist near the canyon: The black lines are the oldest fault lines, green, orange and lt blue are younger.On the right is a long oval and three arrows pointing to the fault lines that cross the ridge through the Kaibab Plateau ...So why doesn't the canyon follow this path, even when it crosses the river in two locations?On the left is a long oval and two arrows pointing to the fault lines that cross the western mounded area ...So why doesn't the canyon follow this path ... even when it is right at the edge of the canyon in one place and crosses it in another?The larger oval shows a lot of north\south cracks that didn't become canyons and some east\west ones that didn't become canyons ...So why isn't there a second canyon in the east\west crack line?My conclusion is that the cracks were there, alright, but that they were not followed by the canyon OR the river, they had NO effect on the location of the river and canyon.There are lots of cracks in that area, a lot more than would be expected in an undisturbed basin without tectonic cause. Here we have uplift, and there are cracks ... just not where you envisage them.Edited by RAZD, : blackEdited by RAZD, : piclink

Oh good grief, I certainly don't consider myself infallible but on the subject under discussion I know I'm right, I just let the word infallible stand for that as it was thrown at me. People here just don't know how to take things in the right spirit. You're all so ghoulishly literalminded.How do I know I'm right? You can figure the timing from the genealogies. You don't have to reinterpret anything, it's all right there.Or, let's say it's tongue in cheek but I don't think much of interpretations other than Ussher's.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How long did they live? How does the last mention in geneologies fit to historical information?

I don't understand your question. Which genealogies? Any supposed historical events before the Flood not reported in the Bible are of course questionable because we're all descended from Noah and family and there was nothing left of the antediluvian world.I haven't tried to compute the genealogies for years, but the Seth line all lived over 900 years I think, maybe a couple in their 800s, I'd have to look it up. Noah was 600 when the Flood began, you'd have to work back from there through his grandfathers to get the time from Creation, something like 1600 or thereabouts.And then as I understand it after the Flood you have to factor in known historical events to be sure of the dates, I recall a mention of the date of Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem as 586 BC. Hope I got that right.I simply keep in mind that it's been about 4350 years since the Flood to our time. And I'm never quite sure about that number either but I think it's in the ballpark. It's just that my memory isn't so hot, so I have to look everything up and unless I know I'm off by a large amount there's no point, I'll just forget it again.

None of that has anything to do with knowing the Flood is the truth. That's a revelation from God Himself. All the other stuff is irrelevant.

No, what I've been shown does not show major disturbances that would have occurred while the strata were being laid down, such as the tectonic and volcanic disturbances, and erosion that is really erosion. The stuff that occurred while the strata were building is just what one would expect, not anything that would reflect millions of years at the surface of the earth. And really, sometime I'll have to go back to that link you gave to count it up, but there are very few layers that were said to have been exposed for such a long time anywaqy. It would be interesting to see how many of the ones that were entirely under water are the ones that show the "erosion" between the layers. I've been meaning to do that.I'll have to come back to your post later, remind me if I forget, but one thing is that the Coconino is NOT toward the end of the strata-building, it's merely near the top of the Grand Canyon, but the strata were originally built to the height of the Grand Staircase to the north of the Grand Canyon and then eroded away over the GC,. The Coconino is near the middle of the stack then.Yes you are right about the 40 days of the rising of the water so the animal tracks would have had to be made during that period. I'm not sure there's a problem with this either myself, but I can't think about it right now.

With the Flood being true, occurring some 4,500 years ago, what do you think is the reason that researchers in dendrochronology are confident they can get back some 12,000 years, and others count Suigetsu varves back to 50,000 BC? They believe they are counting 1+1+1+1.......50,000. How do they get it so wrong? Then they report consilience of this with C14 dating. Why can't they see evidence of the Flood in this?

That could be interesting if it were not for the uncomfortable fact that the same evidence that proves the Biblical flood stories are just myth also refutes the silly idea that we are all descended from Noah.It's sad that so many truths seem to stand in the way of Faith's TRUTHs.