The MOUND determines the direction of the cracks ...
Stress determines the general location of structural failure, and by observing where cracks are, what the materials are and how much the material on each side of the failure has moved one can calculate the stress that was involved. If the stress is insufficient to cause failure then the material would not crack. Cracking does not always occur when there is (insufficient) stress.
There is a much larger ridge than your "mound" running north-south at the east end of the canyon ... and we see fault lines there ... crossing the canyon.
There is also a much larger rise than your "mound" of the plateau at the west end of the canyon ... and we see fault lines there. ... crossing the canyon.
We also see erosion along fault lines in some places, but we can still identify the fault lines when this occurs.
There are no observed fault lines along the meandering path of the canyon, none.
Butte Fault, Grand Canyon, Coconino County | The Butte fault is responsible for much of the present day depth of the Grand Canyon. In this aerial photo, the fault can be seen just left of center at the upturned edge of gray and red strata. During the Laramide Orogeny (70 to 40 Ma), the fault experienced about 300 m (1,000 feet) of west-side up motion (left). This placed Proterozoic Chuar Group sediments (lower left) next to Mississippian Redwall Limestone and Pennsylvanian Supai Group rocks (right). ... Note the Marble Platform in the upper right at an elevation of about 5,000 feet. These same rocks appear across the Butte Fault and off to the left of the photo are at 8,000 feet, giving the North Rim of Grand Canyon its high elevation. The muddy Colorado River is visible in the far right hand portion of the photograph in Marble Canyon.
Notice the lack of meanders along the fault line. Notice the vertical orientation of the (gray and red) rock layers just to the right of the fault line at the bottom of the picture.
So why is there no river channel here, even if the canyon is not here, there still should have been massive concurrent river type erosion similar to the canyon here yes?
quote:Exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon, are numerous faults that document the region’s earthquake — or tectonic — history. Since faults in the Grand Canyon are not only exposed on horizontal surfaces, but also in the walls of the canyon, geologists are provided with a rare opportunity to study what faults look like thousands of feet down into the earth’s crust. Faults are seen cutting through practically every geologic layer in the canyon, from the oldest, two-billion-year-old Precambrian rocks ...
The amount of movement measured on the faults varies from 15 feet to 16,000 feet. One of the most famous faults at the Grand Canyon is the Bright Angel Fault. Originating south of the canyon, it is oriented northeast and slices through Grand Canyon Village, down past Indian Gardens and Phantom Ranch, and northward up Bright Angel Canyon — which is a fault-oriented canyon — and terminates near the North Rim. The Bright Angel Trail descends steeply down the broken, shattered rocks along the fault line, which provides one of the few breaks in the massive cliff faces that generally prohibit descent into the canyon.
Monoclines seen in the Grand Canyon are another expression of the region’s faults. Monoclines are folds, or bends, in the otherwise horizontal rock layers that dominate the canyon. Folds form when a fault deep underground becomes active but doesn’t actually break the surface rocks. Instead, the surface layers bend to form a fold that is draped over the displacement along the underlying fault. The most visible example is from Desert View Watchtower, where the East Kaibab monocline traverses the canyon and has folded the rock layers seen on the north side of the canyon.
So how did those layers bend without cracking Faith? You claim that because there is a "mound" that there must be cracking ... here we have a mound and no cracking ... within the same geological formations as the Grand Canyon.
Why are there no cracks in those bent layers? Whatever fantasy you make up to explain this also can be used to say that the "mound" you claim cracked to make the Grand Canyon did not in fact need to be cracked.
I've added arrows to a USGS map showing the relationship and intersection of the Bright Angel Fault (red arrows) and the Colorado River (black arrows)
In Precambrian time, over half a billion years ago, movement within the Earth’s crust in the region opened a huge gash called the Bright Angel fault. Compressional fault movement provides an invitation for the forces of erosion to initiate, crushing rock along the fault and allowing water to percolate through the layers, chemically dissolving susceptible minerals. With the onset of the Laramide Orogeny in late Mesozoic time, the fault experienced tensional forces as the Colorado Plateau was uplifted as a whole. All these processes essentially weakened the rock and contributed to the formation of a canyon. Bright Angel Canyon traces the route of the fault from the North Rim to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon and beyond, a distance of over 60 miles. ...
Notice the straight line for this canyon that actually follows an actual fault line that actually did open up due to tectonic stress, and that the fault line extends beyond the canyon, and that it is dry ... with no sign of river channel erosion.
We see evidence of fault lines ... without water channels ...
We see evidence of open faults creating straight canyons ... without water channels ...
We see evidence of "mounding" of layers ... without cracking ...
We see faults deeper than the Grand Canyon ... without water channels ...
We see faults lines crossing the canyon ...
... We do not see fault lines forming the path of the Colorado River anywhere along the river location.
Objectively looking at the evidence, there is no reason to conclude that mounding caused cracking along the entire meandering path of the Grand Canyon and that this caused the canyon to be located where it happens to be.
The strata the strata the strata. Nothing else could have made the strata.
You mean this could only be made by a flood ?
i have a simple experiment for you go fill a nice big jar with some rocks, some dirt, some sand .... all the stuff you can find in the strata fill it with water then shake up the content nice and good. Then wait for it all to settle down then compare the results with this picture and tell me if the flood experiment you did conforms with it. Its a simple experiment our kids do in the 3d grade.
The incredible abundance of fossils around the planet.
And how the flood neatly arranged them to fit the evolutionary model right the less complex beasties down in the bottom and more complex ones up top. And no single case of it being otherwise. I know the answer it must have been magic water.
The wrecked condition of the planet.
How is the planet wrecked apart from clearly human activities like pollution?
The lack of tectonic effects for some hundreds of millions of years as seen in the unruffled strata for that period on OE diagrams. Proves those hundreds of millions of years didn't exist.
I guess the flood was making layers of strata at an angle it was magical so it could have done.
Flat slabness of the sedimentary rocks in the strata: proves they were laid down in water, all of them despite claims they couldn't have been, and that none of them was ever at the surface for any great length of time. We'll just have to explain the angle of repose somehow
Sedimentary rocks are types of rock that are formed by the deposition of material at the Earth's surface and within bodies of water
From wikipedia yea sedimentary rocks where made in water we know that its those pesky unscientific geologist that discovered that.
The absurdity of the OE scenarios of time periods attached to sedimentary rocks.
Well one side uses measurements and about 40 different dating methods that all agree to old ages. Your side uses the bible by adding up the lifespans of the books characters. Who do you think is being scientific here? And if your method is viable why not just use the Sumerian demigod kings lifespans they agree with our findings more. Some lived for hundreds of thousands of years.
unk DNA (Massive genetic death as a result of the bottleneck) Also the percentage of heterozygosity in the human genome is no doubt much lower than it was before the Flood, but unfortunately there's no way to prove this. (It's probably evidence more for the Fall and against the ToE than the Flood anyway)
Junk DNA has nothing to do with bottlenecks we see a bottle neck in a population by the amount of different aliases the population has in the DNA. Junk DNA is something you would expect if you believe in the TOE as most mutations are natural they provide no benefit or harm so they don't get weeded out.
These things may not be evident yet but I'd predict: Increasing genetic diseases, increasing mutations, increasing species extinctions.
Thats like saying there will be wars and famine LOL there will always be genetic desieses unless we start manipulating our genome. Mutations will have the same rate, well maby a slight increase do to man made pollution or if the poles start to shift again and we get less protection from the harmfull sun. You know the polar reversals that we have evidence for in molten rock so many that if the earth was 6000 years old i think one would have to happen every day Including the volcanic eruption that would save the information where north was at the time of the eruption.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
Remember, meanders are formed by slow flow, and they are approximately the same width as the river. If the walls were not well along in lithification, the walls would collapse. If the walls were lithified or well along in the process, you don't have anywhere near enough time for the GC to form.
Perhaps you've just provided the explanation: as the river formed the meanders and decreased in depth over time, the walls along the sides did collapse and that accounts for the slopes.
Please at least try to keep up. In that scenario there would be zero to few vertical walls within the canyon because soft sediment can't support vertical walls. Or if it was hard enough to support vertical walls it would be too hard to be cut through in the time allotted. As has been explained and supported by evidence many times.
He's trying to argue that Geology is misunderstood, but his argument is crazy. The value of the article is that it shows that Geology is viewed as an interpretive and historical science, which it is. He's not questioning that, he's trying to make a virtue out of it
IOW the article does not support your claim that geology can't know anything about the historical past. All these pages in this thread and that's all the support you've been able to dig up and it doesn't support your claim.
Calling his article crazy is just another UABF. Let's see you demonstrate that his article is crazy.
Perhaps you've just provided the explanation: as the river formed the meanders and decreased in depth over time, the walls along the sides did collapse and that accounts for the slopes.
So we have an incised meander, and the profile of its cut into the landscape looks like this:
_____ _____
| |
| |
| |
| |
|____|
And then the walls collapsed and produced this:
_ _
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\____/
What are you imagining to cause increasing sidewall collapse with increasing elevation above the canyon floor? Why are the canyon walls collapsing at all? What evidence do you have from the modern world of vertical canyon walls in the process of becoming sloping due to collapsing walls? The answer is none, because once again you're making up a process that has never been observed and that has no mechanism.
I've given lots of reasonable specifics in this discussion about many aspects of the argument. The idea that any nonscientist -- OR scientist -- creationist should try to answer every conceivable objection to the Flood is irrational. In the early part of any science you wouldn't expect that of someone studying it, but you seem to expect it of a creationist, and ANY creationist at that. Obviously I do not impute anything about the Flood to miracle. I'm trying to find physical explanations for it. Your objections are, as I said, irrational
Any viable theory has to explain most or all of what the preceding theory explained. And it's very hard to get a theory accepted when it doesn't explain everything the preceding theory explained and more.
To get us to accept your theory you have to replace all of geology, almost all of physics (including quantum mechanics), all of inorganic chemistry, and probably more that doesn't occur to me right now. Yeah, that's a ton of work, but what we have no took hundreds of thousands of people centuries to develop, and it works. No creationist ever, especially including you, has raised a valid objection to current theory. Not for lack of trying, of course, but rather from lack of evidence and rational argument.
The fact That there's an incredibly large body of interrelated and consilient scientific knowledge is a terrible problem for you, but not for us.
Oh, and your "irrational" charge is just another UABF.
In looking over the flat earth society forum I saw interesting parallels to YECism.
Teach the controversy
This site is not a joke. We are actively promoting the Flat Earth Movement worldwide.
Shallow observation of evidence
The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empiricist approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses.
Willful abuse of evidence, carbon dating the shell of a living mollusk?
Perhaps the best example of flat earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment. In short, this was an experiment preformed many times on a six-mile stretch of water that proved the surface of the water to be flat. It did not conform to the curvature of the earth that round earth proponents teach.
The claim that evidence is not looked at objectively, but interpreted to fit the existing model
In light of the above, please note that we are not suggesting that space agencies are aware that the earth is flat and actively covering the fact up. They depict the earth as being round simply because that is what they expect it to be.
This is very similar to YEC arguments against the reliability of radiometric dating techniques
There are many pictures on the internet and in other media depicting the earth as being round. Why do these not disprove flat earth theory?
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered. Many of the videos posted here to "prove a round earth" by showing curvature will show no curvature or even convex curvature at parts. The sources are so inaccurate it's difficult to build an argument on them in either case. Furthermore, barrel distortion and other quirks of modern cameras will cause a picture to distort with little or no apparent altercation; especially without references within the picture. Photographs are also prone to distortion when taken through the bent glass of a pressurized cabin as well as atmospheric conditions on the outside. With this litany of problems, it's easy to see why photographic evidence is not to be trusted.
This is very comparable to Faith's canyons carved underground in degree of silliness
How do you explain day and night cycles?
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves.
This is comparable in nuttiness to attributing the geologic column to the flood
Why doesn't gravity pull the earth into a spherical shape?
The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity doesn't exist or at least exists in a greatly diminished form than is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity.
TOP 10 REASONS Why "We Know the Earth is Round" Debunked
Refusing scientific results because of supposed assumptions
3. The Coriolis Effect Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.
This type of reasoning look familiar to anyone else? Or is it just me?
8. The Horizon This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.
Of evidence. As opposed to Faith's interpretation. Of scripture.
This is a lie. I've stuck to the physical facts for my arguments on this thread.
No, Faith, it is not a lie. Shall I quote you saying that Bible takes precedence over everything else? Shall I quote you drawing conclusions in the total absence of evidence?
As I've said before this whole argument is about interpretation on both sides, it can't be any other way with the unwitnessed past.
Everything that actually happens leaves evidence behind, and everything we know or will know is an interpretation of evidence left behind by things that have happened.
Evidence comes to us in many guises. Some of it was just created, some of it was created last week, some last month, some last year, some last century, some centuries ago, and some millennia ago. The age of evidence is not a factor, and a witness to the evidence as it was being created is not required.
Certainly quality is an important factor for evidence. The passage of time can diminish the quality of evidence, even destroy the evidence altogether. A little rain might decrease the quality of a footprint, a lot of rain might make it disappear. On the other hand, a sandstorm depositing a foot of sand over the footprint might preserve it for an indeterminately long time.
I've "poofed" nothing here, that's your really inadequate imagination at work.
Practically everything you've proposed involves impossible processes that have never been observed. Whatever you need to have happened, "poof", it happened, with no explanation from you whatsoever of how it could possibly have happened.
I've argued from the physical facts.
You've argued at odds with the physical facts. Your frequent declarations that the flood best explains the evidence have never been accompanied by anything that connects your scenarios to the facts. As we've sought answers, explanations about how things happened have been increasingly vague and confused and more remote from the facts (such as how cracks formed the canyon or how incised meanders formed suddenly) with requests for clarifications unanswered.
And the objection to Morton is not that he HAS interpretations but that he fails to give the facts from which he arrived at them and that is either unintelligent or underhanded of him, and of you not to have recognized it and acknowledged it.
I agree with you that that Morton webpage (Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism) is sparse on facts, particularly about the details of the buried canyon, and that we should provide them. Anyone? The webpage does give links to a couple articles that seem to have gone stale, but I was able to track one down. This article contains an example of a deeply buried karst, but unfortunately you have to be a member to get more than the abstract:
I'm also uncertain of the significance of the deeply buried karst, so maybe someone could explain.
About details of the canyon itself, Morton says the site where he found the image is now gone from the web.
It's typical of this kind of "science" that just about every article on every phenomenon starts with something like "Five hundred million years ago the blah blah did blah blah and the blah blah ate blah blah and blah blah happened." That's the evo fairytale, that is not science, but none of you seems to know the difference.
This isn't an example of evidence-based argument, not even close. You keep protesting strongly that you do argue from evidence, but this example is typical, and even in the best cases you're just arguing past the evidence which never suggests anything like what you propose.
As for your criticism that I don't follow up all your wearying challenges, sure, make me research every little hiccup from the evos, that'll keep me busy so you don't have to think about anything I've said. Which obviously you don't know HOW to do anyway. Why do I bother answering you? The thread wasn't stellar before you arrived but it's taken a dive since.
Can you see the irony of your protests about shabby treatment?
Sure sounds like a Flood deposit to me. Got any pictures? Are they [fossils] all jumbled up together as in other places?
How is it that the Flood jumbled fossils all up, but neatly sorted sedimentary layers?
How is it that the Flood only jumbled up fossils of a certain type in each sedimentary layer, but never jumbled them up between layers? For example, how come the jumbled up fossils in the Redwall Limestone are never found jumbled up in the Kaibab, being instead jumbled up within a layer but never between them?
By the way, in reality fossils aren't generally found jumbled up, if by this you mean many fossils all mixed up together in a very small area. It does happen that we find fossil graveyards, but that's when we get lucky. Fossil graveyards are the exception, not the rule.
To you who from your post clearly has no clue even what arguments I've made here? If they're ridiculous to you they were already ridiculous before you heard one word of them and will obviously remain ridiculous to you after you've not heard one word of them.
Once again you've made an argument without substance and even without any accuracy. You said Heathen had no clue what your arguments are, yet he quoted your argument that the flood was non-miraculous and gave a detailed rebuttal. You completely ignored it and instead attacked the person. Great job!
The Bible itself says both the beginning and end of the flood were miraculous, you claim to be following the Bible, yet you reject that there was anything miraculous about the flood. As I said before, you're following neither God nor science.
I agree with you that that Morton webpage (Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism) is sparse on facts, particularly about the details of the buried canyon, and that we should provide them. Anyone? The webpage does give links to a couple articles that seem to have gone stale, but I was able to track one down. This article contains an example of a deeply buried karst, but unfortunately you have to be a member to get more than the abstract:
I DO NOT DEAL WITH RADIOMETRIC DATING AND DO NOT CONSIDER IT EVIDENCE ANYWAY, BECAUSE THE METHOD CANNOT BE VERIFIED. PAY ATTENTION.
Curiously it has been validated by several independent methods.
The real reason you don't deal with it is because you cannot make up an explanation for the consilience of data that show consistent result from different systems, so to protect your fantasy you need to reject it.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
