|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Continuation of Flood Discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But in the absence of other evidence it is the most sensible approach. Much more so than assuming that erosion started as soon as the youngest surviving rock was deposited (which really IS an attempt to stack the deck).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Hi Faith,
Here's an image showing how regions like Monument Valley form:
This is from Geologic Framework of Arizona, page 30. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: Much more so than assuming that erosion started as soon as the youngest surviving rock was deposited (which really IS an attempt to stack the deck). You're too kind. To me it seems more like fantasy. Sediment, not rock, gets deposited, and before sediments can become rock they must first be deeply buried and compacted. Then before they can be eroded they must become exposed at the surface again. Long time periods are required. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Just have to comment again about how such formations -- a stack of layers exposed by massive erosion -- show that the whole stack was in place before the massive erosion took place.
Yes, we live in a very erosive period of geological time. I've heard it called "geocratic", meaning that a lot of land is above sea level. As such, it is subject to erosion. Most landforms you see on earth today are caused by erosion. There are exceptions to this rule, however, such as Hawaii (the island) and the Modoc Plateau.
This is true of the Grand Canyon where all the strata are there from Tapeats to Kaibab before the canyon itself was cut.
Actually, as we have discussed, there are examples of erosional discontinuities within the sequence you mention.
It's true of the Grand Staircase where all the strata are there from Kaibab to Claron before the cliffs and canyons of the "stairs" wre cut. And it's true of the hoodoos of the Claron where the layers that formed them were all in place before the hoodoos themselves were sculpted. And it's true of Monument Valley where all the strata of which the monuments are composed had to have been in place for thousands of square miles before massive erosion took all of it away except the monuments themselves.
Well, it was massive but it occurred over millions of years, millions of events.
I keep pointing this out but its implications don't seem to be getting across very well.
Well, there's no real point to it. Basically, you are saying that the erosion occurred at only one event in a short period of time. There is no evidence to support this.
It's the same point I was trying to make by pointing out the lack of tectonic disturbance or SERIOUS erosion to he strata visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon until after all of the strata were laid down in that area from the bottom of the canyon to the top of the Grand Staircase. None of that massive erosion happened until after that entire stack to a depth of at least two miles was laid down.
Not really. We know the the Vishnu rocks were eroded and then there was erosion during the GC Supergroup and then, of course, at the Great Unconformity upon which the Tapeats lies. So we know that there were at least 4 major events and several more minor ones with little relief.
In the movie I'm reminded of the same point.
I fail to see how the movie has any effect on geological interpretation.
ooks to me like a massive amount of water washed around those formations and washed away all the strata that had to have been there at one time, leaving those monuments, buttes, bumps, hills, whatever they are.
Sure, over millions of years. Even in the desert climate that would be a lot of flash floods.
Just as it looks like a massive amount of water washed away the strata above the Kaibab rim of the Grand Canyon and formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase.
Sure, over millions of years.
The thing is the laying down of the strata supposedly occurred over hundreds of millions of years and yet ONLY after all that was in place did this massive erosion occur. And yet that fact is dismissed as nothing unusual?
What is unusual about it? There are plenty of continuous sections all over the world. It's just that many of them have not been uplifted like the Colorado Plateau.
I don't care if you want to put your varves and your tree rings and your radiometric dating on your side of the evidence ledger for now. But this fact has to go on the Flood side of the evidence ledger.
So, a fact is something that you perceive? I didn't notice that in the definition of 'fact'...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The MASSIVE erosion of the entire stack of layers all at one time ...
Why is it at one time? What is your evidence, other than your own credence.
... is something else entirely and it's fantastic evidence against the Old Earth and for the Young Earth and for the receding Flood as the source of the massive erosion.
What makes it a massive flood? I have seen floods in the desert and they are very erosive. I don't see the need for one massive flood. What is your diagnostic evidence?
Since this is such fantastic evidence ...
Evidence according to whom?
... it calls all the OE dating into question. And from what you've written here I have to suppose that you don't know what I'm talking about.
Unfortunately, we do know what you are talking about, but you have not provided diagnostic evidence for a flood origin.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I'm even being asked to "support my claim" ...
Well, yes, that's what one should do when one makes assertions.
when it's very well supported in that post.
No. All we see is your assertion that it 'must'a been'.
So the erosion of the monument is too much for 4300 years? That's pretty funny. It's certainly way too little for a couple billion years.
Where do you get this number of 'billions of years'? The rocks aren't even that old.
The whole monument should have been dissolved into dust by now.
Why is that? According to whom?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
When the Flood waters receded. That's what formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase, which include the cliffs from which the hoodoos were shaped.
If you are going to say this, you should have some evidence of an impounding feature. What is your dam? Otherwise, why did the waters recede rapidly?
Uh huh, but on Flood timing the time is quite short. The layers were laid down by the Flood waters. As the waters receded they broke up a lot of the upper strata leaving all kinds of interesting formations in the Southwest.
How do you manage to lithify chalk beds to stand hundreds of feet high in one year? What was above the chalk?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
If it erodes 5 feet in ten thousand years and it's five feet in radius, we'd expect it to be gone in ten thousand years. We can extrapolate backwards to estimate how long it's been eroding. I don't know why you think you can tell that there "shouldn't" be any left. You don't know when it started eroding.
It seems that YEC doctrine requires all processes to be complete. Alternatively, they have not started. There is no way that we can see an intermediate product in nature.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Scree is exposed to weathering, which means things like wind, rain, temperature variations and freeze/thaw cycles. Even buried scree is vulnerable, though to a lesser degree, to weathering. Particles flake off the scree, water erodes and carry some away, grinding against other pieces of scree creates flakes, and over time each piece becoming smaller and smaller. The tiers upon which the scree rests are also subject to erosion, and buried scree eventually loses its supporting platform and falls to the next tier, eventually reaching the valley floor. The tiny particles that flake off the scree become the soil of the valley floor.
This is a good treatment of the topic. I would like to add that, from personal experience, these rocks are not all that hard. They are often very porous and cemented by clay and/or carbonate. When you walk around on these deserts, you see little but windblown sand derived from the breakdown of these sandstones. That sand ends up in the streambeds and eventually into local basins or the ocean.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sediment, not rock, gets deposited, and before sediments can become rock they must first be deeply buried and compacted. Then before they can be eroded they must become exposed at the surface again. Long time periods are required. All that's true but long periods are not required on Flood timing. It deposited the sediments miles deep, the great depth compacted them, the receding Flood waters eroded away various portions of the strata, exposing various formations -- cliffs, canyons, buttes, whatever -- which are then eroded by normal processes yearly.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
All that's true but long periods are not required on Flood timing.
That's not the point. The point is that time and burial are required to form competent rock.
It deposited the sediments miles deep, the great depth compacted them, ...
What depth is that?
... the receding Flood waters eroded away various portions of the strata, exposing various formations -- cliffs, canyons, buttes, whatever -- which are then eroded by normal processes yearly.
So, you say that the rocks lithified in one year to form hundred meter cliffs and yet they were soft enough to readily erode? Edited by Admin, : Fix quote code.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
OK I get it, you're all assuming those monuments were bigger enough to have been eroding for tens of millions of years and still not disintegrated.
In fact, it was you who said that hoodoos are eroding out of cliffs that are composed of continuous material. As the hoodoos erode away, more are formed from the receding cliffs. Is that rocket science?
Sigh. I look at them and fit them into a footprint that can't be as wide as the scree talus so I "know" they haven't been eroding that long.
Please explain. Why not?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
But there is no reason whatever to suppose the erosion started recently enough for that to be the case. The fact that they wouldn't be here if it started when of course it did start, right after the cliffs were formed from which they were carved, simply proves that the OE figures are wrong.
So, how were chalk beds deposited during a flood? Please explain.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sure, that will do for an OE theory about how it happened. Of course I prefer the Flood explanation which has the receding water draining more or less sheetwise across the surface but following any grooves that happen to develop and deepening them. If the surface is arched like that then the surface would form cracks as illustrated, and the water would of course run into those cracks and deepen them, cutting deeper grooves as more sediment, which is not yet rock, is dislodged, gradually carving out forms between the cracks but running sheetwise wherever the surface is more or less level until eventually we have the freestanding buttes which at that point are somewhat larger versions of the monuments we have now, and then they are eroded by weather for the next 4300 years until they are what we see today.
It works. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
All that's true but long periods are not required on Flood timing. It deposited the sediments miles deep, the great depth compacted them, the receding Flood waters eroded away various portions of the strata, exposing various formations -- cliffs, canyons, buttes, whatever -- which are then eroded by normal processes yearly. You keep repeating really stupid assertions like that but when asked to explain how your imaginary flood sorted the sediments you always just run away. Is there any possibility you might EVER present the model, method or process that could do what you claim?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024