The 3 catch cries of uniformitarian geology are equally well explained by the Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The three catch cries of Lyellian uniformitarianism are perfectly explained by flood geology:

​

(1) Rivers follow gorges proportional to their size.

​

The same catchments that drained the Flood waters, rapidly eroding soft sediments into gorges, are also the catchments that provide the source for these same rivers today.

---

Umm, TB? If rivers formed canyons by eroding soft sediments, when did those sediments lithify into the rocks we see today and how did it happen? How did gorges form in soft sediments? Why do they follow structural patterns that form in fractured rocks?

quote:

---

(2) Layers only form slowly

​

Layers have been proven beyond doubt to form in seconds and minutes under rapid flow. (See numerous posts on this web site).

---

SOME strata form slowly, others do not. You are making a hasty generalization here.

quote:

---

(3) The formations around the world can all be assigned to a dozen or so modern day sedimentary environments.

​

Firstly most of the geo-col comes from a single environment - marine inundation on to land.

---

And the problem here is what? Do you really think that you are the first person to recognize this? What unimaginable hubris!!

quote:

---

Secondly the assignments are simply 'best matches'. They frequently don't match up well. There are no continental shleves around the world producing anything like the scope of most of the flat marine strata on any of our continents. There is no analog to the vast coal fields of the East Coast of USA. Many of the fresh water beds, have land plants strewn thoughout thousands of square miles without any evidence of a river delta. There are no huge chalk beds forming anywhere. It is all simply 'just so' stories. Everything written in these books is very 'reasonable' but they are just stories. Any series of formaitions can be justified by an arbitrary series of environments.

---

Lots of assertions, but I see virtually no data.

quote:

---

Since most of the rocks on land are due to marine inundations we ascribe them to global flood surges. The smaller freshwater beds in-between are assigned to catastrophic fresh water flooding that carved out erosional features that can be approximately matched with the dozens of modern day environemnts despite the fact that they were rapidly formed. This just-so story is no more just-so than the uniformitarian solution.

---

This is laughable. How can you have a fresh water flood while the land is covered by a marine flood? I can see that we have had no influence on your enlightenment, TB. As much as we have tried to open your blinders, you continue to rant in unsupportable and unintelligible verses.

quote:

---

Every submarine fan or river delta or eolian sand deposit can equally well be due to catastrophic flooding and drainage through soft sediment.

---

What? How can erosional processes cause deposition? Your complete ignorance of geology is obscenely exposed by your statments. I'm beginning to worry about you, TB. This latest rant makes me wonder if you are okay.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Gene

quote:

---

How fast would they be draining? Wouldn't draining Flood waters tend to exhibit sheet flow instead of stream flow?

​

I agree. Draining flood waters would begin as sheet flow and morph into stream flow as the flow shallowed. This is precisely the nature of the geological column.

---

Hear, hear. Well said for someone who hasn't done a day's worth of field work.

quote:

---

What about layers that contain ash and bentonite deposits specific to that layer? For example if the layer below an ash deposit and the layer above don't have that ash, it is highly improbable the sequence formed in minutes.

​

Some such ash flows may indicate that they were laid down in-between water action. It's aslo possible that ash mixed with water to produce ash mudflows.

---

Let me guess, you've never seen a bentonite bed...

quote:

---

But why does each inundation bring with it such widely varying fauna?

​

YE-creationists of course beleive that the the lifeforms of the fossil record all lived contemporaneously and to a certain extent in different ecologies.

---

And those ecologies never bordered on one another and no rivers ever flowed through more than one of them. And there were no migrations across boundaries. Nonsense. According to many creationists, humans lived side by side with dinosaurs... why do we not see their fossils together?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We argued about lithificaiton issues a while back. We discussed that soft sediments collapsing due to erosion would at some point stop collapsing. What else can happen?! When it stops collapsing that will harden and be eroded by normal processes.

---

And just what are these 'normal processes?' How does a sediment laying around at the surface suddenly become a rock? You never did address this issue before.

quote:

---

How can you be so sure tha tfracturing of soft sediments is so differnt to fracturing of hard sediments? What's your soft sediment model?

---

Does it make sense for soft sediments to carry individual fractures for miles?

quote:

---

And the problem here is what? Do you really think that you are the first person to recognize this? What unimaginable hubris!!

​

I make no claim to originality at all!

---

Okay, so all of those jaded scientists out there never thought of this?

quote:

---

This is laughable. How can you have a fresh water flood while the land is covered by a marine flood? I can see that we have had no influence on your enlightenment, TB. As much as we have tried to open your blinders, you continue to rant in unsupportable and unintelligible verses.

​

You have clearly not even heard our claims. The marine inundations that were part of the flood came and went just as mainstream science believes and has discovered. All we say is that these inundations were catastrophic.

---

Then the non-marine part was not a flood as you stated.

quote:

---

How can erosional processes cause deposition? Your complete ignorance of geology is obscenely exposed by your statments. I'm beginning to worry about you, TB. This latest rant makes me wonder if you are okay.

​

Your use of geological terminology must be more rigid than a computer programming language Edge. Everyone reading this knows that erosion produces sediment that gets deposited somewhere! So I'll ask you, how can we have an erosional process without deposition?(!)

---

No. I simply do not try to redefine terminology wherever I need to, as creationists are prone to do. In case you didn't notice, the deposition usually occurs in a place different from erosion. I point this out simply to show that you have no clue as to what your are talking about, and that all of the in-depth reading that you have done is gone to waste because you do not understand the most basic principles of science. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I take your points, they are very good. But do you really pretend that these issues have been carefully considered by mainstream scientists from a flood geology POV? Of course not. You quickly look for the beds that are obviously problematic for us. I can point out dozens of beds that are probnlematic for you too.

​

Instead we point out that most of the geo-col is in favour of the flood and that the catch cries of uniformitarianism that led mainstream geology down the 'eons' path were always equally well explained by the flood.

---

Hmm, more unsupported assertions. How about some data? And where are these problem beds for us?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Wet sediment lying around hardens through compression and chemical processes as you know. You show me the work that shows that the sediments couldn't have hardened since the flood.

---

Well, first of all, you have to show what supplied the compressive forces and where the time came from for the chemical processes. If you have ever seen wet, soft sediments erode you might understand why the GC could never form. The incised sediments would simply flow to reform banks at an angle of repose consistent with a material having no cohesive strength.

quote:

---

Like I have posted earlier today, some fractures are post-flood times. The Grand Canyon edge has been undermined for 4500 years and of course has caused hard wall collapse.

---

So, you are saying that the soft sediments were deposited, then eroded, all in one year; then the walls lithified, then the walls were fractured, then the fractures were eroded to form the side canyons. Pardon my incredulity, but this sounds more far-fetched than any evolution or abiogenesis scenario.You have to remember also that you don’t even have 4500 years to do this. There is no evidence of any such observed deposition and erosion for over thousands of years.

quote:

---

All we are saying is that you have found a certain level of consistency in gradualism and have gone out on a limb on everything.

---

Not at all. We accept that some processes are rapid and others are slow. You, on the other hand, must have virtually all unrealistically rapid processes or you start falling outside your biblical myth.

quote:

---

We have done the same for flood geology.

---

You have ignored numerous fatal flaws, however. Thos have been enumerated frequently here on these pages.

quote:

---

Once you go flood or no flood most of the interpreaiton is
ideology-based which you guys rarely admitt.

---

Again, incorrect. We do not disavow interpretation. However, we have abandoned the flood concept as of, oh, about 200 years ago.

quote:

---

The non-marine component was still catastrophic. Whatever 'the windows of heaven opened' means did something that has not occurred since.

---

Hmm, that’s convenient for you!

quote:

---

The freshwater Hermite layers of Grand Canyon have land plant material strwn through thousands of square miles with no evidence of a river delta.

---

Why do you limit yourself to river deltas for an appropriate land plan environment? Besides, do you know what a paleodelta looks like?

quote:

---

We have excellent eveidcnce of both catstrophic fresh and sea-water fooding. Just keep telling youself that somehow there is an envirnement that could do it today.

---

Just what is that evidence? We have discussed that some sand laminations can occur quickly, but nothing else.

quote:

---

e: In case you didn't notice, the deposition usually occurs in a place different from erosion. I point this out simply to show that you have no clue as to what your are talking about, and that all of the in-depth reading that you have done is gone to waste because you do not understand the most basic principles of science. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

​

You are completely incorrect Edge.

---

Really? I think we have ample evidence at this point that you really are out of your depth on this subject.

quote:

---

I simply assume that the reader is aware that erosion in one place generates sediment in another.

---

Then why do you discuss erosion, saying that it produces layers. It does not. Perhaps you assume too much, and trick yourself. And, by the way, don’t you know that assumptions are bad for you?

quote:

---

You may think it reuires a PhD in geology to know that but guess what: I knew that before I ever picked up my first geology book.

---

No, I don’t think so. But it does take a modicum of training and experience. Your words belie your ignorance of geological processes.

quote:

---

Lithification : What supplied the compressive forces? You're kidding right? Thousands of feet of sedmient on top and you ask for a source of compression.

---

But you won’t have thousands of feet of sediment. Because they have no cohesive strength, they will a flow toward the stream until an angle of repose is accomplished. I think you will find that such an angle would place the north ‘rim’ somewhere up around Escalante. Try cutting a canyon in wet cement sometime. You can’t do it. The process of flow will also disrupt the bedding such that your stratigraphic column is scrambled. Then you have to explain the presence of rock fragments farther down the stream channel and in the Gulf of California, etc.

quote:

---

And could you explain the following in English:

​

quote:

---

: The incised sediments would simply flow to reform banks at an angle of repose consistent with a material having no cohesive strength.

---

---

See above. Water saturated sediments will yield under an unbalanced load.

quote:

---

Grand Canyon history: You find what I said difficult to stomach? It is exactly what one would expect. Soft sediment. Channeling. Lithificaiton. 4500 years of Colorado river. Regular hard-sediment fracturing due to undermining.

​

There is no other possible expectaiton!

---

Sure there is. Long periods of deposition, dewatering, lithification, followed by uplift and erosion.

quote:

---

e: You have to remember also that you don’t even have 4500 years to do this. There is no evidence of any such observed deposition and erosion for over thousands of years.

​

Says who? You'll be pretty famous if you have some flood survivor who was there to not record these events. The depositon occurred during the flood, the erosion occurred at the end of the flood.

---

Well, we don’t have any record over the last 1000 years of human habitation of major changes in the topography. So you time scenario has to be reduced by at least that much.

quote:

---

Interpretation: Edge, you show me the discussion during the 18th century that points out things even as clearly as this dunderhead biophysicsist does. I have read multiple volumes inlcuding 'Great Geological Controversies'. No-one at that time really looked at the flood scientifically including those who beleived it for various reasons including the fact that no-one was aware layers could and did form rapidly.

---

No, it was accepted a priori by creation era scientists. However, scientific investigation showed that this story defied the facts and it was abandoned. Now the question is, why is the a priori acceptance of evolution so much stronger than the a priori acceptance of creationism 200 years ago? The answer is that it isn’t. Modern acceptance of evolution is based on evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I think you need to go on an excursion to Mt St Helens and tread the water laid sediments there. And it's only been 20 years.

​

And why should those in the middle east hav noticed sediments 'disappearing'?! They were drying not disappearing.

---

Why didn't they say 'drying' then?{Fixed quote structure - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Lithification : The layers will flow toward 'the stream' will they? What if our layers are the flat beds comprising at least the entire Paleozoic? Keep working on the kindergarten flood story and maybe you'll disprove it.

---

The orientation of the beds is not material here. They are water saturated, soft, post flood sediments. They have no strength. So how do you get steep canyon walls?Your model is by nature a kindergarten model. On close inspection, it disproves itself.

quote:

---

History of geolgoy: Exactly. The flood was accepted a priori by Christian scientist but they never came to the scientific conclusions that creationists since the 1950s have come to becasue they didn't know that layers could form rapidly.

---

However, they did not make the mistake you do in extrapolating from some layers forming rapidly to all layers forming rapidly. They were actually more logical and scientific than you. You will note that they abandoned creationism. Why do you think that was?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You may be quite right that the walls sagged and collpased in a wet sediment way. This could still have left a large canyon with sagged walls. After lithificaiton and 4500 years of conventiaonla erosion we get hard sediment fracturing and removal of the slipped material.

---

Nope. If this happened the walls would not be as near to the river course as they are. As I mentioned earlier the canyon rims would probably be scores of miles away.

quote:

---

You can call our stuff 'illogical' but you haven't pointed out what's actaully wrong wiht our sceanrio.

---

I just pointed out another problems above. If you tried reading my and others' posts, you would understand the arguments against your scenario.

quote:

---

The only thing you do is point to a minority of problematic beds. You never address the bread and butter.

---

LOL! What minority are you talking about? And why do you have any problematic beds at all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Maybe the width of the Grand Canyon is just right for our mechaism.

---

Nope. You can make wild assertions all you want, but this will not make your wishes come true. In fact the soft sediments that you have eroded must have supported canyon walls even steeper than the present ones if you scenario were correct.I am so glad that you have revolutionized geomechanics, though. I am sure that we can do away with all of our modern safety rules for construction in unconsolidated materials.

quote:

---

The walls are clearly far too far away for any of your mechanisms.

---

How so? Another unsupported assertion. You seem to be getting a bit desperate.

quote:

---

The catastrophist that I am can't believe the mainstream offerring of catstrophic flow due to a broken dam cutting GC out of hard sediments!

---

So, you have degenerated to making arguments of personal incredulity. Well, the catastrophist that I am just can't believe that the entire geological record was laid down in a year. So there!