Origin of the Flood Layers

So, you think that layers were laid down with "time gaps" but don't represent any type of "time period." What can that possibly mean? I have tried to point this out to you before that in your scenario the "time periods" are there... they just represent minutes or possibly hours rather than millions of years. But they undoubtedly represent "time periods."HBD

Not surprising, and I don't have time to dig through those GC threads to find that line of discussion - not that it would matter much anyway.But anyway, now it seems as if you DO accept that the geological layers DO represent a specific "time period" but just a very, very short period of time compared to standard geological timing. So what you should do is propose an experiment or a model that demonstrates your premise that geological layers several feet thick can be deposited in hours or days and how the expected layering from coarse to fine could be violated and for example, be laid down fine - coarse - fine - coarse - etc (in one event, that is). We are asking for something that could support that idea not just speculating that it MIGHT have happened... we just don't know.HBD

What if you did not have the Biblical account... would you still think the evidence supports a global flood? Would you come to the same conclusion independent of the Bible?I assume you will say "yes" although I really don't think that to be the case. The sole reason you hold to the idea of a global flood is that it is a "Biblical" position. There is a big difference though. It's one thing to speculate about past events based on physical conditions that we can observe and test today. It's a completely different thing to speculate about past events based on physical processes that essentially violate the known laws of physics or misrepresent those physical processes we can observe today.HBD

How could fish have survived such sediment saturated water?Try this experiment at home. Get a 29 gal aquarium and a goldfish (they are very hardy). Dump in enough silt to cover the bottom of the tank about 1 inch deep. Create enough turbulence to keep the silt suspended (this would be a fraction the the turbulence required to keep sand and gravel suspended) and see how long the fish survives. I doubt it would last 24 hours in those conditions - although goldfish can gulp air from the surface so it may last a couple days.Now, I doubt you will be able to conduct this experiment, so how about just speculate as to how it would turn out. How long will a goldfish survive in such conditions? Where would they hide during the flood so that they could find food and fresh, breathable water?HBDEdited by herebedragons, : clarification on how much silt to add

Right. It is hard for people who don't actively engage in scientific research to understand that issues like the age of the earth are conclusions drawn for looking at data and evidence from multiple sources. They think that scientists begin with a premise and then interpret the data to fit. That process just simply could not work as a scientific endeavor - it would eventually fall completely apart.Of course, we all know of cases where that DID happen - where researchers jumped to conclusions and tried to make the data fit their expectations. But in the end, when other researchers began to scrutinize the data, the original conclusions completely fell apart. Just to clarify my personal position... I wouldn't say the Bible was necessarily "incorrect". There is meaning and purpose behind the story that I consider to be "correct" and true. It's just that the events depicted in the story were written from the perspective of an ancient people, and we try to shoehorn our modern understanding of the world onto it. Does that make sense or do I need to explain more of what I mean?HBD

Here is your argument (at least one of them)... Now, jar has given you a specific example with which you can apply your argument and explain how these salt deposits can be layered with clay deposits by settling out or by successive deposits by waves. He is asking you to describe in more detail how this process could have occurred. Our observations suggest that these deposits take long periods of time to accumulate.How is this mischaracterizing your arguments? How is this debunkery? How is this strawman nonsense?We obviously don't have an "eye to how it could have happened." This is where you who are enlightened need to explain it better. Just saying "by settling out or by successive deposition by waves" is not good enough. When we learn about the physical processes involved in these types of deposits, there is a great amount of detail given... a detailed description of the process. It makes sense. If you say it happened a different way, then you need to describe why the standard way of thinking is wrong and how your idea works better - in detail.Another good idea would be to propose an experiment we could do (even if only a thought experiment) that would lend credibility to the idea of waves depositing salts in successive layers interspersed with clays. Is the real reason there is no point in you participating that you really don't have a good argument? Just "What ifs?"HBD

But that's how science works, Faith. We argue over details because that is what strengthens an argument. Believe it or not, science relies heavily on indirect evidence and inferences and it is those minute details that make the difference between a strong inference and a weak inference. This even more so true in modern science where all the easy, direct observations have been done.As an example, I am studying plant pathology. So, I inoculate a plant with a potential pathogen and then observe disease symptoms on the plant some time later. I then conclude that said organism is a plant pathogen. Now realize that conclusion IS an inference. I did not actually witness the organism CAUSE disease nor did I actually observe the disease - I only observed the symptoms. So, what details, if you knew them, would make this inference stronger? What details, if left out, would make this inference weak?You propose an inference about a particular formation and we ask for the details because those details, if left out, make your inference very weak. In addition, the assumptions we make regarding those details are contradictory to the inference you propose. For example, we assume that larger, denser particles will settle out before smaller particles. Is that not a valid assumption? What forces would be at play that would make that an invalid assumption? That's not a change in subject... that is an opportunity to apply your "model." How does your model explain those formations? Keep in mind that even in this case the sorting of particles by density and size still applies unless you can provide a reason why that assumption does not hold in a particular case.How about you choose an example of your own to apply your model to. I really liked the Coconino Sandstone myself. Apply your model to the formation of the Coconino Sandstone; provide details as to how receding flood waters deposited that formation, show some calculations as to the rates of deposition that would be required to lay down that layer in a matter of days or weeks (whatever the time frame you think is plausible). Yeah, I can understand how you feel. But you can't just make an assertion and expect everyone to accept it - especially in a science thread. Before you make an assertion such as "there would have been waves as the land mass was exposed during the receding of the Flood." be prepared to defend that assertion... with plausible details.HBD

What I have found is that discussing the particulars is rather pointless since it is the basic premises of science that are being rejected. It seems more necessary and beneficial to discuss basic principals rather than specific evidence. For example, how we make inferences, how we use indirect evidence, how we test and verify theories, how and when we use assumptions, etc.We all know the tired old adages "It's just a theory" or "It's still a fish." So, IMO, the more important point to be made is HOW and WHY we come to the conclusions we do, otherwise it can seem (to them) that our conclusions are a priori assumptions rather than conclusions based on the evidence.There also seems to be great ignorance of basic scientific principals such as how gravity sorts particles, 2nd law of thermodynamics and so on. The kind of things you learn about in introductory science courses. Those are the things that need to be hammered away at.HBD

There is no picture that can begin to do the GC justice or give even a hint at the sheer scale of the place. My visit to the GC was before I really started thinking about this whole young earth vs. old earth debate and pretty much assumed the earth was young, just as the Bible supposedly presents it. But I remember trying to imagine how those features could have possibly formed in a single flood event. It was just... indescribable...There are those who have visited the GC and still hold that it was formed by the flood, but I can't imagine how they reconcile it. As I said, no words or picture can substitute for standing at the rim and looking out over that canyon. "Breath-taking" is all I got!HBD

Here's an easy assignment for you. Look up "underground rivers" and get a good sense of how they form and the shape their caverns take. There is plenty of underground rivers that have been thoroughly mapped.Then look up "buried canyons" - there is not as much information about buried canyons as there is on underground rivers, but you should be able to find a couple.Then put the two images side by side and make a comparison.After you come to a conclusions as to whether the two images could represent the same process, then get back to us and tells us what you found out.HBD

I wasn't asking you to be puristically scientific, just to do a quick google search and make a visual comparison. It's not about the terminology, it's about why we think these "buried canyons" were at one time on the surface. These seismic images look nothing like underground rivers... they look exactly like canyons that were cut by a river while exposed to the surface. Why should we think they were not at one time exposed to the surface? WHY???? Because you say a world wide flood deposited the entire geological column in a single event? Just because you say so???? That's not the point at all, that is your martyr complex showing again. The point is you say that we are so blind to facts soooo obvious that anyone with a brain should be able to see it, but when we ask you to make simple observations and draw simple conclusions about a claim you have made, you declare "I don't care!!! I am right anyway!!!"That's why nobody sees these "obvious" facts you cling so tightly to.HBD

That is how underground rivers form, water runs down through cracks in easily erodible material, such as limestone, and carves out caverns and tunnels until it finds a place to escape. Cross sectional shapes are generally rounded. Flow patterns are random since they follow cracks and the most erodible materials. They tend to form in stacks as the water works it's way down through the layers. ------------------------
Canyons form by water flowing to the lowest points until they converge into larger and larger flows of waters. They cut down into the terrain and form primarily V shaped cross sections. This creates a characteristic dendritic (branching) pattern. Each system produces very characteristic features. They cannot be confused one for the other. You throw this around like it has some valid logic to it. It doesn't. It is not a mater of "absolute certainty." It is about "reasonable certainty."Here is an seismic image of a buried feature. There is just no way to confuse this with an underground river system. It was clearly formed in the same way as a subaerial canyon system. And we can be reasonably certain of that - reasonably certain enough to conclude that this feature was NOT formed underwater; that while it was forming, it was exposed at the surface and subsequently buried. But this is an important issue for you. There are buried features that could not have formed underwater. The flood was not active during those times. Perhaps those canyons formed BEFORE the flood through "normal" erosion and then were buried BY the flood? That would be a more logical answer to the problem. But NO, you just want to ignore it and suggest that because we are not absolutely certain (i.e. we don't have a time machine) that you can just toss out any hair-brained idea and simply dismiss it.This is not about scientific precision, but about looking at the evidence rationally and honestly. You offer interpretations based on considering the evidence not by making stuff up to save your personal theory. There may be some variations on how to interpret those seismic images, but formation by water running between the layers is NOT one of them.HBD

Yea, OK... "random" is kind of an unfortunate word and I have tried to think of a better descriptor, but I can't think of anything else that really fits. It's not that there is no rhyme or reason to their course, but no universal pattern that they follow. The dendritic pattern of surface rivers is pretty much universal, but underground rivers don't really have that kind of recognizable pattern. Recognizable features, yes... but I think random is appropriate to describe them, unless you have a word that works better?But anyway, there is really no mistaking one for the other.HBD

If you are talking about the canyon system formed on the surface, then yes, it's about a river in a valley and running water. If you are saying that both systems are about a river in a valley then, no; subterranean systems don't have valleys. Because it is the features of the initial conditions that determine where water will flow. The dendritic system forms by water seeking the next lowest surface feature. An underground system forms by water following cracks... I already went over this. I suppose that I could imagine some unknown force generating underground cracks in a dendritic pattern, but then that force would need an explanation because that is just not the pattern these underground cracks take. Can you find a cave system with this type of branching pattern anywhere? Now this is pedantic nitpickery! Your scenario requires that these underground canyons formed while the water was receding. If the water is all gone and all you have the water in the sediments which is being squeezed out (part of the lithification process, no doubt) then where does the sediment come from that fills it all back in? You need this to be cut and filled back in during the receding of the flood waters.These buried canyon systems are filled with DIFFERENT materials than the surrounding rocks; that is how the seismologists are able to detect them. Seismic waves react differently to materials of different composition and/or density. So these underground systems are not filled with material that has simply collapsed into them, but has been transported from another location. What additional evidence could you possibly need?? These systems form in completely different ways and due to completely different physical features. There is not enough time AFTER the flood to form these vast underground systems and fill them back in. You need the flood waters to do their magic.Also note that these underground systems would need an outlet where the water and sediment could exit the system. So, the receding flood waters would need to carve out canyons on the surface in order to provide a place where water could exit from this system that is deep underground. This cut would drain most of the flood water off the surface but you STILL need enough left behind to rapidly erode through this underground system AND carry the sediment from it away. Then there STILL needs to be enough water remaining to erode another surface feature and carry that sediment into the underground system and fill it back up.Your point about it being "AFTER" the flood is meaningless; this needs to form in the SAME event. You have one and only one event to form all these features! One event - the flood. There may be a sequence of steps that the process goes through, but it is ONE event! You are not positing multiple flood events are you? Maybe jar convinced you that the Bible describes multiple floods "AFTER" the flood, normal process resume - you can no longer invoke "magic" flood waters. I know, I know, you never said "magic flood waters." But you do call on the flood waters to do things that they just could not possibly do - unless... magic.Face it, these buried canyons were at the surface at one time. So, forget trying to handwave it away that they MIGHT have formed underground. Instead, determine WHEN they were at the surface and use that to constrain the flood timing. Don't keep trying to justify or simply ignore the impossibilities in your scenario.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : claification

I am going to go against the mainstream here and say that "what-ifs" are actually an important pat of the scientific process. It's the kind of questions that lead us into new ways of thinking, new ways of looking at problems. There is nothing wrong with proposing a "what-if" scenario. The problem is how you deal with responses to your "what-ifs." This is what I mean. They only present a serious challenge in your own mind, because you dismiss and ignore evidence that goes against your "what-ifs" and you cling tenaciously to them. And this is an example of the wrong approach to science that you keep being accused of... You already know the correct answer, now you just need to find the evidence for it. However, that evidence seems to be eluding you. If there really was a global flood 4,440 years ago, the evidence would NOT escape detection - you would certainly be able to find this ever elusive, inescapable evidence.HBD