Summations Only

And your evidence for this is ... ?Archaeological evidence has not discovered a single person that lived over 80 years (if they even lived that long) -- so if long life was common, why are there no fossils of people of such age? So you take Bishop Usher as correct?BTW -- there are three trees in the White Mountains of California that are older than 4350 years ...http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

quote:

---

Notes on dates:
* tree is still living as of 2012; age given is additional years since it was first sampled when this is known.
** tree is dead; age is at time of death.

Tree species	age	type	ID	Location	Collector(s), Dater(s), Reference
Pinus longaeva	5062*	XD	-	White Mountains, California, USA	Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan
Pinus longaeva	4845*	XD	"Methuselah"	White Mountains, California, USA	Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan
Pinus longaeva	4844**	XD	WPN-114,"Prometheus"	Wheeler Peak, Nevada, USA	Currey 1965

---

How did that happen?Edited by RAZD, : ...

So Faith, you have two major problems with the Grand Canyon that you just have not answered.

1. Message 1175: "Now lets review again ... I've updated this picture to show some scale:
   ​
   At some point the flood water was above all these features, while today it is below these features. This means that at some time flood water was at the elevation of all these features as the levels went down.
   ​
   At some point the flood level would be at the 7000 ft topo line, and either (a) the erosion at these two paths was occurring or (b) it had occurred, and either way there would be evidence of active erosion in these two locations."
   ​
   • There isn't any evidence of water channel erosion across these paths.
   ​
2. Message 1268: "Here is a map of the area again, and this time I have drawn ovals around the fault lines that exist near the canyon:
   ​
   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."
   ​
   • There isn't any evidence of water erosion along these cracks causing any canyons.

Here are the pictures again: You claim that the waters filled the canyon when it was carving it out, and you claim that the uplift caused cracks that then allowed the water to flow -- this does not fit either map shown above for the reasons given above.Your hypothesis fails to explain the evidence seen.Badly.The Palouse River shows both catastrophic channel flow erosion AND a place where this flood flow followed a fault line. The canyon there is not like the Grand Canyon ... why do you suppose that is?Edited by RAZD, : ""Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by Admin, : Narrow the images.Edited by RAZD, : pixlink

Since you and I are not geologists should we not defer to those who have spent their lives studying the data to answer that? Or should we stick to our beliefs upon the matter and use our gut feelings based upon a shallow comprehension of all the details involved in the principles of geology?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/...ng-style-and-belief-in-godGoogle is your friend. Do you study both sides of the argument or just pay attention to the sites that prop up your current beliefs?

quote:

---

But a greater threat, according to Fuis, is the sedimentary structure of the Salton Trough itself. Excavate this basin of rocks and soil swept down over the millennia from the Rocky Mountains and you’d have a canyon larger than the Grand Canyon.

​

This formation, sediment nearly 9 miles deep, can trap earthquake energy and amplify seismic waves, resulting in longer, more intense shaking. No one has measured wave speeds in the basin until now.

​

And there is your answer. The Grand Canyon is in another spreading zone trench. The one splitting off Baja California from Mexico. The one that would have the Gulf of California extending up past the Salton Sea. Were it not for a Grand Canyon Sized load of sediments over 9 miles deep.

---

http://www.psychologytoday.com/...ng-style-and-belief-in-godOf course this is just more evidence against your model. Unless the geology of this area reveals that all this deposit occurred rapidly. Any wagers on that?So you believe the creationists have an advantage here? It all went down the drain. After replacing the stopper God has done an excellent job of hiding its location from scientists. I guess the hollow earth theory has some merit then? As that conveniently provides a space for all this load of material to disappear to.Of course if it didn't go down the drain then this appears to be an issue for young earthers as there is only 6,000 years to disperse the material rather than millions of years. Not really. The flood waters are higher than the uplift else they would go around. So they go over - everywhere - and would fan out as in any other situation if it weren't for the fact that this is a hypothetical global flood. So they would not fan out, neither would they form a canyon. They would simply continue to lower in height everywhere. From the highest point of the uplift to the level of the flood waters there is no obstruction to any flow of water. Water merely moves to a lower level if there is one. But a global flood has no lower level to flow to. So the level everywhere merely drops. It would be like draining the tub after taking a bath. I suppose that according to your theory we could make a little dam of mud across the tub and as the tub drains it will cut a valley through that mud. As long as the level of the water in the tub exceeds that ridge height nothing would happen. It would merely (slowly) flow over the top. Perhaps when the level fell below the height of the ridge the remaining water would be dammed. Perhaps if there is a weak spot in the dam the remaining water could cut a canyon through it. But dam it(misspelled on purpose) this is a higher spot so the water remaining will simply flow around it as you have already observed rather than cut its way through. Why? It takes the path of least resistance. Why does it have to cut into it? If the water level is higher than the ridge it simply goes over the top as it does everywhere else since everywhere else is lower than the ridge. If it is lower than the ridge then it goes around since there are lower spots than the ridge to flow to. Is this trapped body of water you are imagining spilling in such a manner over some lip that it falls squarely onto the high part of the ridge? Is it something like Niagara Falls and this high spot just happens to be at its base? I've already posted my objections to your flood cutting a canyon above. You have posted more than myself in this geology thread and therefore are more knowledgeable on the subject than I am so I will now defer to your instruction in a matter of flood geology. You say the flood laid down the geologic column. My question for you is the rain and waters rising from the earth had to interact with the existing topography of the earth in such a manner to lay down one kind of deposit 1st everywhere on the planet, followed by another kind of deposit everywhere and so on. Doesn't that imply that the earth had to be layered in some manner previous to the flood? So one type of layer was washed away then another type of layer etc? What caused these layers in the earths structure previous to the flood? There was no tectonic activity previous to the flood in your model and no great passage of time. Is it simply that God likes layers and said "Let there be layers" when the earth was formed? Perhaps that is why we like layer cakes since we are formed in his image? And how precise these layers must have been such that the rising flood waters dissolved one layer at the same time all over the planet before starting on the next layer so that there are no gradual transitions between the layers in the geologic column. That's just amazing and a wonder of the creative power of God. I think he must have been showing off just a little bit, don't you?I have to wonder though why in some places some layers go missing in the geologic column. There really is no flow involved in a global flood where the water level rises everywhere. It came from rain and from deep underground. A low spot might get flow if it is surrounded by some sort of a lip. But it shouldn't get any deposits should it? The water on the other side of such an obstruction is not flowing it is standing water.Is it due to that wonderful ice canopy? The one that withstands meteor strikes and remains centered over the earth even though there is no gravitational mechanism to accomplish that feat. An object inside a spherical shell experiences no gravitational pull relative to that shell. Wouldn't it drift up against the earth?Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.Edited by shalamabobbi, : Pasted the wrong link for Faith to browse.

So you still have the issue of holding back enough flood water in a basin to cut the river channel. Please see the previous link again if you haven't looked at it yet.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/...ng-style-and-belief-in-god
Assertion? You think that is how geologists arrive at their conclusions? No consideration of physics? Is this some projecting on your part? The facts about river flow rates and deposition and meanders are just some uninformed speculation on the part of geologists? Really? And no other geologists call them on it? Wow, just wow. I'm surprised at how long they've been capable of pulling off this charade just to collect a paycheck. Really? That fast? Here it is again:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/...ng-style-and-belief-in-god I suppose it has to do with the creationist argument that a body of trapped water after the flood receded could easily cut the canyon since the deposits hadn't hardened off completely. These are as deep as the main one. According to your model the main one has a trapped body of water to cut it. But now in your imagination damp soil is sufficient to provide enough water to cut the side canyons? I wondered about this one myself. It only makes sense as an argument if the moved delta sediments are progressive with the passage of time. IOW if an artist painted a picture on a divided ground and the ground or surface he paints on is slid along the division after the painting is complete there would be no issue to discuss. But if the artist is a slow painter and the ground is moving slowly while he paints some brush strokes across the surface get separated more than others and this proves that the painting did not occur as a single quick event. Here it is again for you.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/...ng-style-and-belief-in-god
You have only so much potential energy stored in the supposed lake. The cutting of the canyon requires a certain amount of energy to break off the rock and carry it away. It is simply physics. You can see the argument if the lake is nothing more than a bowl of water, right? That isn't going to cut it. Drawing the line as to what is enough is not a matter of gut feeling conjecture. It is a matter of physics. A river running over vast amounts of time represents a greater total volume of water. In fact this really disproves your model quite nicely. Yes, well too much assumption as it is I'm afraid for the creationist model. This is necessary as there seems to be no evidence from which to make the claims being put forward by creationists. But that is admittedly the nature of apologetics. Simply provide for the possibility and everyone remains happy in the creationist camp. But the problems arise when they are faced with conflicting evidence. This one's a repeat. How do creationists who have even far less time to work with get rid of the erosion at the foot of the canyon? The amount of erosion is identical in both models. And the post above answers this question. It took all of about 15 seconds to google.The most glaring falsification for your model to me is the Hawaiian Islands and Emperor seamount chain that reveals plate tectonic activity occurring over vast amounts of time rather than quickly and gradually slowing as you believe it happened.Even if you don't accept radiometric dating you have to acknowledge the existence of the isotopes in the rocks and you are left without any mechanism for the sorting that gets "misinterpreted" by the scientists. The amount of evidence that contradicts your model is staggering and I really don't know why I bothered to respond to this post. Maybe it was a subconscious fear that if I didn't you would use it to belittle my post that you had to answer all the objections to the flood model to be credible. Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.Edited by shalamabobbi, : Pasted the wrong link for Faith to browse.Edited by shalamabobbi, : anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, spelling

The evidence against the Flood is indeed staggering - like a sizeable proportion of 200 years of geology, starting with the earliest Bible-believing observers who could not find evidence for YEC. Maybe expecting Faith to respond to all of it is a bit much, but this thread seems to have become bogged down in the GC with Faith refusing to consider views contrary to her own. A move away to the H-E chain would be appropriate because her model requires Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and she has refused to discuss the ramifications of that. Then somewhere there has to be fitted in a massive ice age to produce all the glacial deposits in a short time after the Flood. Next, you need enough time to get enough people in Egypt to build the pyramids. Oh dear, so much to do, so little time!With the frequent quakes, volcanoes, and then Ice Age, Noah would not have been able to plant his vineyard, nor would the Tower of Babel get built.

Not an assertion. A conclusion based on many decades of experiments and theory. We understand fluid mechanics pretty well, enough to calculate why only slow flow in a relatively flat area creates meanders. There have been loads of experiments, from high-school labs to MIT to field studies. But you are totally ignorant of all that (and proud of your ignorance), and you are incapable of comprehending the evidence and calculations, so you make up an "assertion" story to make yourself feel better. Total disdain for truth. And incredibly arrogant when you should be humble.

While you're thinking about that, keep in mind what I said; trackways are found all the way to the top of the rock record. The Coconino is Permian in age and so fairly far down, but the Cretaceous period is rife with tracks, yet they are near the top of the rock record, not the beginning. I accept the task of reminding you of this if you forget. There is. The problem is the law of superpostion. The same problem you have with the brooding dinosaur example. The only possible way your model could explain the presence of tracks and an in situ dinosaur in sediments supposedly laid down by the Flood would be if they were deposited at the very beginning of the Flood. But their presence near the top of the rock record prohibits this possibility. So it is indeed a problem for you, one that I have previously pointed out to you. That was when you conceded the point (disingenuously, as it turns out) and declined to discuss it further. This too I will take the opportunity to remind you of if you forget to address it again.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : extraneous word

This sounds like a distinction without a difference. When you say "I know I'm right" doesn't that mean that you don't accept that you could be wrong? Which is the same as believing you're infallible?If you could mix in a little more inquisitiveness and a little less certainty you might find yourself less often insisting that pigs do too fly.--Percy

The problem with Faith is the evidence.Faith will not accept any evidence which contradicts her religious belief.Other than the educational (to us) and amusement value, we are just wasting our time presenting evidence to her.But to me this is a very good lesson in abnormal psychology and how the human mind can be literally brainwashed into believing things that are patently untrue.

Unfortunately it's not all that abnormal ...... now flat earthers and climate deniers ...

Hi Percy, I've been meaning to respond to this but honestly, it has been difficult to find good information on the Coconino sandstone. Most recent work seems like it is coming from YEC sources, in particular, Cedarville College, spearheaded by ICR graduate Dr. John Whitmore. This article gives some insight into the motivation behind this research.

quote:

---

The goal of this multi-year research project is to investigate the nature and character of the Coconino Sandstone and discover if its depositional history can be better interpreted within the context of the great Flood of Noah's day.

​

Please pray for the success of the study and the safety of the researchers as they attempt this sometimes hazardous work.

---

"the success" obviously meaning to prove the formation was deposited underwater, not to arrive at a truthful conclusion.Brand (author of paper in question) is also a YEC and so shares this motivation.Anyway, the paper in question was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Geology) so there should be a certain amount of confidence in the validity of the work. The conclusions stated in the paper were rather ambiguous, which probably don't reflect his actual interpretation but were necessary to be accepted into a peer reviewed journal.Work that describes the actual features that geologists use to determine that the Coconino is aeolian must be in books that predate the internet, because I was unable to really find anything. But below are some of my thoughts about it based on what I have read. Correct, it would not be expected that toe prints would be left in completely dry sand, let alone a way to lock them into place in order to preserve them so they didn't get blown away. I would be critical of Brand's paper in that he makes very little effort in his methods section to be clear that the conditions of the sand in the laboratory represent what we see in the Coconino deposits. All it refers to is "fine sand." What does that mean exactly? How does his "fine sand" compare to the sand in the slabs he investigated? It's unclear, but it doesn't appear that he used any kind of sand/muck combination.I would also be critical of the fact that he did not describe any of the actual tracks left behind by his test animal (which also is another criticism since he only tested one type of animal). What the paper states is that he video taped the salamanders walking in the sand and used the video tape to construct the pathways. No indication that there were significant footprints left behind. There doesn't appear to be any indication that there are marine deposits of any kind in the area (in the Coconino), so there would not be an issue of tides. I suspect that any water that may have been involved had significantly lower energy than tides, which have rather high energy (at least when in association with waves). Brand did his study using a current of 8 cm / sec, which actually seems like a fairly strong current. But perhaps without significant disturbance such as riffles, the energy would be low enough to leave footprints behind.I do think that Brand makes a good case that there was water involved. The trackways are oriented in different directions than body orientation suggesting that they were being pushed sideways by a current. Also there is indication of body buoyancy where trackways start and stop unexpectedly and sometimes only the rear feet are touching the surface and leaving tracks.My thoughts on interpreting all this is that there were seasonal fresh water inundations that created lakes and some flowing water. Tracks were made during this time and the water quickly percolated down into the sand. Fresh deposits were blown in from the North and covered the tracks while they were still damp.A modern analog to the Coconino desert may be the Namib Desert.The type of inland lake I am thinking of: This particular area has extensive salt and clay deposits, but we wouldn't necessarily need to find salt or clay in the Coconino if those minerals weren't being blown in from the source. An interesting thing about the Coconino is that there don't appear to be any plant material preserved anywhere in the layer. A discovery of plant material would go a long way in helping to answer some of the unknowns.Also remember that during the Permian, this area was between the equator and the tropic of cancer and would be subject to topical northwesterly winds due to the Coriolis effect. It makes a lot of sense that there would be heavy seasonal rains.Anyway, that's the short answer to your question. HBD

It was a local flood

Too much here to try to answer, may come back to some of it. Or I may not, at least not for a while. I need a break.Bottom line for a Biblical creationist is that we won't question the Bible, it's God's word, that's the way it is. You think that's stupid, of course, you think your science is right if it contradicts the word of God and that leads you to say some pretty insulting things about those of us who disagree. Unfortunately too many "Christians" have bought into it too, who ought to know better than to question God. The Bible is full of warnings about trusting man and rejecting God.It gets depressing having to deal with all the insults slung at creationists here, insults and refusal even to think about some of our arguments. There ARE some good arguments. Oh yes there are.Anyway, I'm taking a break from this madhouse for a while.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

God wrote the rocks, Man wrote the Bible.I know which I worship and trust.

Just so you have something to think about whilst you're in Time Out - it's not just science that says you're wrong, the rest of Christianity does too, your personal interpretation of what is biblical is a tiny, insignificant minority of even Christian's interpretations.You have global science against you, all other religions against you, atheists against you and virtually every other Christian against you. So obviously you must be right.