Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 1795 of 1896 (717822)
02-01-2014 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1792 by RAZD
02-01-2014 8:56 PM


Re: faults and erosion
IIRC she once said that all the river canyons in this cross-section ... Were east-west cracks that all became canyons.
That's pretty much the impression I got, it kinda hard to keep it all straight though - like shifting sand.
Or something like that.
I think it started out as a simple way for her to explain how the water from the lake spill-over found its way over the uplift and begin cutting the canyon, and it just escalated from there ... rather than just admitting it wouldn't work and just abandoning the idea.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1792 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2014 8:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 1800 of 1896 (717847)
02-02-2014 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1797 by Faith
02-02-2014 2:06 AM


Re: faults and erosion
You're the one taking a diagram way too literally.
No I'm not.The flatness and horizontality of the strata is the crux of your main argument.
Faith in msg 1730 writes:
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.
This is your main argument right? That ALL the strata was laid down BEFORE any tectonic disturbance occurred. Your drawing nicely shows what "flat" and "horizontal" looks like.
So, if you could have drawn freehand, you would have drawn the layers with varying thicknesses, cutting off other layers, with river channels between the layers, with dished out surfaces, with rubble between the layers. etc ... Doubtful, since your point is that the layers were all laid down flat and horizontal. Drawing erosional surfaces would have been counter-productive.
So I take it you concede that the layers are not flat, since you think I'm crazy for suggesting that you thought they were flat?
Of course, your answer is (besides we are all crazy) that the erosion occurred BETWEEN the layers AFTER they were laid down. It was this claim that led to a whole slew of side issues, such as underground canyons, unlithified sediment, etc ... But you don't want to get bogged down in these side issues, right?
-----
So, based on your original argument and the relevant facts, no side issues withstanding ... either:
A. original horizontality is NOT a principal of geology, or
B. they were laid down flat (on the top surface) and subsequently disturbed or eroded BEFORE the next layer was put down.
Which is it?
------
You're all nuts.
No I'm not. My mother had me tested.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1797 by Faith, posted 02-02-2014 2:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 1802 of 1896 (717854)
02-02-2014 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1789 by Faith
02-01-2014 6:14 PM


Re: faults and erosion
I'm trying to make a few points I thought were pretty simple. Should have known better I guess,
The problem is that an honest person knows when to admit they are wrong and back off. You simply press forward into areas you know nothing about and just make stuff up in order to save face on those "simple points."
'cause this is Evo Wonderland where anything a creationist says will be so garbled and twisted and obscured beyond recognition within moments
If you are concerned about this, you shouldn't say stuff like this:
I think I can say, however, that the animals may not have had "homes" to "get back to" after the Flood but simply dispersed in all directions, even to great distances. The whole climate is supposed to have changed rather dramatically so whatever "home" had been would probably have been unrecognizable anyway. If the continental plates didn't start moving immediately then there must have been enough time for them to disperse to those great distances, including into the areas that became the new continents that were moving away from the original.
Starts out garbled and twisted and can only go downhill from there... That "simple" paragraph is soooo ripe with nonsense that can ripped apart and can lead down so many side trails.
there's certainly no point in trying to say something that's less than simple.
Not without more knowledge of what you are talking about.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1789 by Faith, posted 02-01-2014 6:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1803 of 1896 (717855)
02-02-2014 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1801 by RAZD
02-02-2014 8:08 AM


Re: faults and erosion
curious that there is one fault that was buried by layers of sediment and then reactivated to cause those layers to bend ("mound" in faith talk) without cracking and without canyon formation. But all tectonic action occurred after the layers were laid down, so how does this buried fault come to be?
Nice. Where is this buried fault, do you have a reference. (interested not doubting )
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1801 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2014 8:08 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1805 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2014 10:32 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 1812 of 1896 (717906)
02-02-2014 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1806 by Faith
02-02-2014 3:22 PM


Re: restatement
I get what your point is Faith, but you keep making up excuses to not have to admit you are wrong.
The point is that the tectonic disturbances didn't happen until after all the strata were in place,
I agreed with you a long time ago on this point and you even thanked me that at least someone was willing to agree with you on any point.
the fact that the nice neat parallel strata remain nice neat and parallel while being bent over the uplift in the GC area
But this is not a fact, is it? The strata are NOT nice, neat or parallel, or flat. They have erosional features between the layers. They vary in thickness and end abruptly. The implication of this is that some amount of time elapsed between when one layer stopped being deposited and the next layer began being deposited. How much time? We can't really say without more information, without the details of these erosional surfaces. Was it a day, a year, a million years? To determine that we need to know more about the erosional surfaces. But you are not interested in those "side issues" so we can suffice it to say, for now, that some amount of time elapsed between some of the layers. Agree or disagree?
All these disturbances in the strata occurred after they wree all in place which is evidenced by the fact that they were all affected as a whole block
Again, OK. As long as you are only referring to the tectonic disturbances and not the disturbances between the layers. If you think disturbances between the layers occurred after the layers were all in place, we would need to hash that out some more.
The implication of this is that there were no tectonic changes before they were all in place so that during their laying down over those however many hundreds of millions of years there were no tectonic disturbances at all,
OK. Yes this would be the implication of the strata being affected as a whole block.
which really means there wree no hundreds of millions of years.
Now hold on, here's the major problem. This conclusion does not follow from the previous observation / implication. This would be like saying "HBD did not post on this forum in 2013, so that really means there was no 2013." The conclusion does not follow the premise.
In order for your conclusion to be valid, you need to establish that tectonic disturbances are a requirement of geological time for any particular area. Another thing you could do is to show that everywhere (or at least most places) on earth have the same lack of tectonic disturbances and have stacks of sediment laid down relatively flat and then affected as a whole block.
I understand your argument Faith, probably better than you do. However, I disagree with your conclusion. It's just plain wrong.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1806 by Faith, posted 02-02-2014 3:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1813 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 12:07 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 1815 of 1896 (717941)
02-03-2014 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1813 by Faith
02-03-2014 12:07 AM


Re: restatement
but lately you seemed to be taking it back
No, not at all. The things in my last reply that I said I agree with, I agree with. But as I have said several times ... it is not the whole story. And in addition, your conclusions do not always follow your observations.
Would you please review the supposed answers I've supposedly been given about erosion between the layers?
Not right now. I want to stick to your main point (as you have complained that you don't want to get off on all these side issues). For now we can suffice it to say that some period of time elapsed between layers being laid down.
A layer represents millions of years according to OE thinking.
Not exactly. A layer represents a period of time in which a specific depositional environment existed. A geological layer could very well represent a very short period of time or a very long period of time. The idea of long periods of time came about as geologists began to study the clues within the layers that helped establish how long each layer took to deposit.
I have pointed this out before that it is unnecessary to assign an age to geological layers in order to establish a sequence. However, as you begin to scrutinize each layer and how it was deposited, the idea that they could have been laid down in a matter of days begins to evaporate. But we can leave that for another time. For now only think about the sequence.
Which brings up unconformities. How do geologists identify unconformities and why would they even identify them as gaps in the geological record if that would be problematic for an old earth theory? Do unconformities really represent "missing time?" In the same way does my not posting here during 2013 represent missing time?
I shouldn't have to establish the already understood expectation that tectonic activity has been ongoing throughout time.
Yes, you do. What is the expectation for a maximum period of time that a particular region of continental crust can go with out tectonic activity? And how do you arrive at that number?
Do you understand the significance of the North American Craton?
quote:
The brown area shows the part of the North American continent that has been stable for over 600 million years. This region is made up of a basement older Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rock that is mostly covered by a relatively thin cover of younger sedimentary rock. Geologists call these long-stable continental cores cratons.
The green area on the illustration shows new continental material that was added relatively recently, within the last 600 million years or so. Continents can grow when two plates collide, welding, or accreting, the two pieces together. Continents also grow when oceanic crust is scraped off oceanic plates as they sink in subduction zones.
The purple area fringing the stable continental core is made up of older Precambrian basement that was deformed during plate collisions that occurred within the last 600 million years. The force of collision produced great folds and faults that sometimes penetrated deep into the continental interior. Where the crust was uplifted, these folds and faults are exposed at the surface, allowing geologists to piece together the ancient history of our continent.
So this area in brown, which represents most of the continental U.S. has not had major tectonic activity since the basement rock was laid down. It appears that the major tectonic activity occurs at plate boundaries and the interior of the continental plate is relatively protected from disturbances. Why should we expect the interior areas to undergo tectonic activity during that time period?
This IS something you need to establish in order to support your most basic argument. If your basic argument cannot withstand the evidence, there really is no need to go further, is there?
HBD
ABE: Percy noted that the GC area is in the purple area of the North American craton map. See my reply to him for clarification of this. Message 1819
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1813 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 12:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1816 by Percy, posted 02-03-2014 10:20 AM herebedragons has replied
 Message 1817 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2014 10:48 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 1821 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 5:29 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 1819 of 1896 (717959)
02-03-2014 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1816 by Percy
02-03-2014 10:20 AM


Re: restatement
But Arizona, the Grand Canyon, and the Grand Staircase, are in the purple area.
Yea. I suppose I should clarify that a little better.
The purple area represents portions of the stable continental core that has been deformed WITHIN the last 600 my. It is thought that the major deformation of the Grand Canyon area was during the Laramide orogeny which began about 80 mya. But between 600 mya and 80 mya, the area was part of the stable continental core.
If 100 mya was the cutoff for coloring the purple area, the Grand Canyon would be included within the brown area.
Faith's argument is that there should not have been hundreds of millions of years WITHOUT a major tectonic event. The brown area shows this is not correct; there are large areas of continental crust that have not undergone tectonic disturbance for long, long periods of time.
As kind of a side note, I ran across this interesting animation of the Laramide orogeny showing all active faults during that time and heave rates.
Also note that according to the animation, faulting activity in the GC ceased about 30 mya.
I hope that clarifies my point somewhat.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1816 by Percy, posted 02-03-2014 10:20 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1820 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 4:47 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 1831 by edge, posted 02-03-2014 7:10 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 1836 of 1896 (718027)
02-03-2014 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1821 by Faith
02-03-2014 5:29 PM


Re: restatement
What a bunch of evasive crap. The time periods are dated from the ROCKS, right? Who cares about the exact time frame DURING that period in which they MIGHT have been deposited? The point is that the WHOLE period is dated from the ROCKS.
Whatever. Nothing evasive about what I said.
And stop accusing me of this that and the other,
What did I accuse you of????
which you do even without quoting me to prove anything about it. You are just making up crap like all the rest of them. Such as my conclusions don't follow my observations. This has got to be YOUR stupid misreading, idiot. PROVE IT or shut up.
What? I most certainly did just that. Here's the exact quote from Message 1812
Faith writes:
The implication of this is that there were no tectonic changes before they were all in place so that during their laying down over those however many hundreds of millions of years there were no tectonic disturbances at all,
HBD writes:
OK. Yes this would be the implication of the strata being affected as a whole block.
Faith writes:
which really means there wree no hundreds of millions of years.
HBD writes:
Now hold on, here's the major problem. This conclusion does not follow from the previous observation / implication. This would be like saying "HBD did not post on this forum in 2013, so that really means there was no 2013." The conclusion does not follow the premise.
You're nuts.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1821 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 5:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1837 of 1896 (718030)
02-03-2014 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1831 by edge
02-03-2014 7:10 PM


Re: restatement
Well, the GC itself is located in the Colorado Plateau which did not see a lot of deformation during the Laramide.
I realize this. The point is that the area was stable for several hundred million years, and although that is rather unusual, it does not contradict an old earth.
Now, if you want to see real deformation, look at the Precambrian rocks of the Grand Canyon. These, of course are hard for Faith to explain because they are obviously older mountain building event(s) which are overlain by flat-lying sedimentary systems, which are, themselves folded elsewhere.
Nah, she explained that with ease.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1831 by edge, posted 02-03-2014 7:10 PM edge has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1873 of 1896 (718191)
02-05-2014 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1853 by edge
02-04-2014 6:54 PM


Re: mountains
Faith writes:
I'd guess it was the initial jolt as the continents ripped apart.
Keep in mind that Faith accelerates all tectonic plate movement to occur in 4,300 years. This means the plates were initially moving at 20 feet per day and have gradually slowed down to their current rate. So this "initial jolt" would have to accelerate the plates from a stop to 20 - feet per day which would be a force beyond reckoning - the kind of force that tears planets in half ... or gently folded the Appalachians, either way.
In case Faith accuses me of falsely attributing this concept to her Message 6. To the best of my knowledge she has not recanted from this position even though it was shown to be all but impossible.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : Correction: changed 2 feet per day to 20

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1853 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 6:54 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1881 by saab93f, posted 02-07-2014 6:14 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 1874 of 1896 (718193)
02-05-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1865 by RAZD
02-05-2014 8:34 AM


Re: mountains and the names of layers
These are just the "names" of layers, so they designate locations in the geological strata with oldest layers at the bottom and youngest layers at the top.
Even if you ignore the absolute dates of geology in order to make you fantasy conceivable, you still need to pay attention to the relative ages - what layers are below other layers, when plates collided and when they separated.
This is something I find frustrating. YECs think that we all start with the assumption that the earth is old and then build a story to support that premise. When in fact, the exact opposite is true. You don't need absolute ages to determine sequences of events. You can start by assigning very young ages if you wish, and the relative sequence still stands. I have tried and tried to get this across to her, which I see you have picked up on, but to no avail. I guess it is because a YEC begins with an assumption of age and tries to make the data fit the predetermined age and so they assume that is just how science works as well.
Frustrating to no end ....
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1865 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2014 8:34 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(4)
Message 1875 of 1896 (718194)
02-05-2014 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1872 by edge
02-05-2014 10:10 AM


Re: mountains
That's why I suggested rebound.
You may have suggested it, but you didn't explain it. What rebounded off of what?
I wonder why the India plate hasn't rebounded off the Asian plate? The size difference is what ... 20 to 1. The India plate should have rebounded into Australia
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1872 by edge, posted 02-05-2014 10:10 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1876 by vimesey, posted 02-05-2014 12:32 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 1877 by edge, posted 02-05-2014 1:24 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 1885 of 1896 (718854)
02-09-2014 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1881 by saab93f
02-07-2014 6:14 AM


Re: mountains
Have you done or do you know of any calculations about the amount of energy required/released from superfast continental drift?
Yea, we did some rough calculations on the Heat release from tectonic friction thread. Here are some notable posts
Message 9 and Message 25
The problems for rapid plate tectonics is orders of magnitude greater than can possibly be realistic, however, Faith still believes.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1881 by saab93f, posted 02-07-2014 6:14 AM saab93f has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 1896 of 1896 (721886)
03-13-2014 8:29 AM


Summary
Wow, put into summary mode after only 1880+ posts?? We were just getting started ...
Seriously, this was a fascinating thread. I learned so much about geology from following it and researching for my own replies. Although some points did drift into other parts of the world, most of the thread was an exploration of the Grand Canyon. What an absolutely beautiful and fascinating area. I have been there and stood on the south rim near the Village, and can say that no picture or description you can find on the net can do the GC justice - not even close. The place is so incredibly vast and the scale is simply orders of magnitude greater than anything else I have ever seen (the Rockies of Colorado are a close second). Truly one of the wonders of the world! I am pretty sure we could get another 1800+ posts just describing various features and points of interest.
Anyway, the history of the GC is an incredibly complex puzzle, of which we only have a small percentage of the pieces to. Even professional geologists who have studied the area all their careers haven't fit all the pieces together and completely solved the mystery of the GC. We do, however, have enough pieces to be sure that the great flood DID NOT form the GC itself nor lay down the entire stack of sediment.
I have to agree with Percy that Faith did do a great job on this thread. On another thread, Faith suggests that I think she is the "dumb fundamentalist." Far from that, I think Faith is very well informed and argues her points better than most YEC that I have ever debated with. I give her kudos for that. In this thread, she did stick to what she sees as the scientific evidence for a flood and it wasn't simply an exercise in apologetics.
My problem is this: the history of the GC is an enormous puzzle, a puzzle with say 10,000 pieces, and Faith latched onto a just handful of those pieces and felt she could draw a conclusion about what the puzzle really looks like from that handful of pieces (one being the infamous cross-sectional view of the Grand Staircase). Actually, the problem is that she felt she already knew what the puzzle looked like so she found pieces that appeared to match what her preconceived image was, while ignoring other pieces that were presented or dismissing them as irrelevant. Granted we only have a small fraction of the pieces to this puzzle of the GC (maybe 1/4), but when you consider them all together, a great flood that laid down all the layers and then eroded the canyon is just not supported by the evidence nor is it even feasible.
One of my favorite "pieces" that I spent quite a bit of time looking into was the Coconino sandstone. Here we have a layer of sand, that is thought to have been deposited sub-aerially, very high up in the stack. In this layer we find preserved footprints of reptile-like creatures scampering around on the dunes. Some YEC researchers have tried to show that these footprints could have been laid down underwater. There arguments are somewhat convincing and I think it does show that some amount of water was involved, although I feel the exact conditions they were formed in is still uncertain. However, the problem is that we have LIVING creatures still running around. This constrains the age of this layer to the 40th day of the flood since all living things were dead by this time. Now you have the entire stack, some 3,000 feet thick, being deposited in 40 days!?!?! Game over!
I thought about proposing a thread to discuss some ideas about what how the GC actually DID form, but got distracted by other things. Maybe someday in the future I will get around to it. It is a very fascinating subject.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024