|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 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 1736 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 1736 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 1736 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 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 1736 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 1736 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Here's an image showing how regions like Monument Valley form:
Good illustration. Here is a real life tepui on the Guyana Shield.
This is from Geologic Framework of Arizona, page 30. These rocks are harder and older (Precambrian) and make the monuments of Monument Valley look puny. Much more water here, of course, and check out the talus deposits. These features are weathering out of a huge plateau referred to as the Grand Sabana in Venezuela.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The point is that if all the strata are in place before this massive erosion occurs it means that massive erosion didn't occur at any point during their laying down.
And the problem with that is what? Besides, we know that there were substantial erosional events below the Unkar, below the Chuar and below the Tapeats. What are you avoiding them?
You can see nice neat strata in those hills and buttes in the movie I mentioned, forms carved out of what was of course continuous strata everywhere in between originally, just as you can see them in pictures of all these formations etc etc etc. Of course it can all be rationalized as you all do in OE terms but the simple fact I keep harping on is really very good evidence that OE timing is wrong because otherwise you WOULD have massive erosion at other points in the stack.
Explain thsi evidence? Why is it evidence? And why MUST there be erosion at any given point in time?
Yes of course you can rationalize it away. Just hundreds of millions of years of no massive erosion and then suddenly kawham huge cliffs, canyons, buttes, layers and layers of strata eroded away completely, down to scoured surfaces of Kaibab (Permian) or whatever the sandstone in Monument Valley is. Every time I notice this I'm amazed that the OE explanation continues to reign.
Please give us an explanation other than your personal prejudice. Why can we not have a long period of relative stability? Or is that just your opinion? What is it based on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I can't look at straight flat formations like that without thinking Flood.
Of course. That was your early brainwashing. This truth was revealed to you. You did not arrive at this conclusion through careful observation and study. So this is your evidence? Arbitrary acceptance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I think tectonic tilting.
And what a real scientist would do is go out and look for supporting evidence. For YECs, it means repeating the same assertions over and over until everyone's eyes glaze over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Three or more miles deep.
And where would all of those sediments come from in a global flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Flat formations can be formed in many ways.
But the professional creationists have told her otherwise. "Widespread flat layers are diagnostic of flood deposition." No explanation necessary. It's obvious, after all...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
It might surprise you to know that I didn't get that from any professors or even from creationist books. That's how I personally see the world.
Good, then you can explain why extensive flat strata indicate a flood. What is your reasoning? To avoid the one-line response, I will explain. I know of nothing in all of geology that says a formation is somehow, intrinsically limited in extent. As long as the depositional environment is broad, then the rocks deposited can be extensive. One only need to look at the near continental extent of the Sahara Desert to refute this notion. I also know of no rule that any particlular sequence of rocks must be disrupted over any length of time. On a stable continental platform, there is no reason to say the deformation must occur everywhere in a billion year time period.
Most creationists don't attribute all the strata to the Flood.
So you are not discussing just the Paleozoic system in the Grand Canyon? I thought you were confining yourself to the Cambrian to Permian section of the GC. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Besides tectonic tilting I should have added that many creationists think the sea floor dropped and that's where the Flood water went.
Is that what you believe? Frankly, it's kind of hard for me to believe that the oceans ever had any base other than oceanic crust. Then, it's hard to believe that the oceanic crust had the same density so as to have the same elevation position as continental crust. That would be unless the continents themselves formed during your flood, which (literally) doesn't hold water since people ostensibly lived on continents prior to that flood. What would be the cause for the ocean basins to subside and do it so quickly that runoff from the continents would be so erosive as you indicate? Basically, I'm saying that if you adhere to this position, you have a lot of explaining to do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024