Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

Take it easy, TC. You can't be expected to hold down the creation side single-handed.I have admired your debating style, even if I think you're mostly wrong (you've been putting out baloney with a high degree of eloquence.) I do seem to see burn out signs in your resposes of late.Best regards,
Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-21-2002]

--Whew, its about time I get this response put together, its been too long."So now were saying the Canyon formed after the flood abated?"
--Yes, could have been any weeks, years, or possibly hundreds of years before it broke loose."lithification of the Grand Canyon."
--When Mt. Saint Helens erupted, it created a still massive miniature Canyon 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon. Producing enormously tall vertical canyons of strata created by that one catastrophe. Still standing there today and slowely becoming even more like the Grand canyon today through erosion. That little stream flowing at the bottom of it is not what created the canyon as is known from Mt. Saint Helens."None of the rocks that were deposited 6 months ago can be described as partially lithified. So, the rocks MUST have been in their hardened state 4,500 years ago, the Colorado river simply could NOT have eroded to the depth it has, in 4,500 years."
--Most defenantly the Colorado river didn't create the Grand canyon the way it is today, Rather it was a mass of water that would be similar if you blew up hoover damm."So please present evidence that the Grand Canyon was made in a couple of years."
--Mt. Saint helens created a miniature Grand canyon in less than a Day."I would be interested to hear the Mississippi flood theory. Please include references, if rates of deposition, or other data, is going to be quoted."
--From where the Mississippi river starts to its end there is only a I believe 600 or 900 ft. difference in that long length of land. When the flood happend and it receded off the continents it would not be nearly as catastrophic as the areas in the rockies to for Grand canyon. The mississippi only has a looping meandering formation, and is without steep edges. Signifying that when it receded it would have been a slower, calmer effect. Picture yourself on the beach, and get about 30 ft away from the water and take a, say, large 100 gallon cooler, fill it with water, and put it on the 30 ft mark on the ground and open that little flap that makes water pour out as if to fill a glass of water. Make a pre created path say less than a centimeter in depth in a wiggly line (not too wiggly) down too the beach with your finger and watch the water flow. You will see that it will flow in the direction that the path will take it, alowing it to be a meandering flow. Now take the cooler and fill it up again and instead of letting it flow like so, dump the whole cooler on the beach, the result would be catastrophic if that beach were a segment of north america."The evidence isn’t unknown, I included a link"
--It is from that link where I make the claim, let me show you just what I mean.(quotes from discovery sites)--------->
"Sources of evidence of the various ice ages and their climates include sediments (deposits of mud and other matter) on land and in the oceans, and today's glaciers and ice sheets."
--Ok that is all great but I could say the exact same thing points to a Global Flood, they are being very vague, sediments, glaciers, and ice sheets, they tell you the source of the evidence, but they do not tell you what the evidence is."This evidence included striae on rocks and some huge boulders deposited far from their place of origin. By the mid-1800's, many scientists believed that the evidence resulted from the movement of glaciers that had covered vast areas of Europe and North America. By the late 1800's, researchers concluded that certain moraines and other material left behind by glaciers in North America resulted from four ice ages. They named these ages the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian, and Wisconsin."
--Now they are talking about 4 ice ages and how 'recearchers concluded', but by what evidence to they conclude this from? Boulders being moved from their place of origin is evidence of an ice age...period, not millions of years, not multiple ice ages, or anything like that, they lack the specifics."An analysis of river terraces on the north slope of the Alps mountain system in Europe led to the identification of four ice ages in Europe. The terraces are composed of layers of gravel. Scientists concluded that rivers had deposited the gravel when the climate was cold."
--What was their analysis? And how did they interperete the analysis to bring them again to this 'scientists conclude' line again? They lack the presentation of real evidence."No one knows exactly how the older ice ages fit into the sequence of about 18 Pleistocene ice ages."
--How did they come up with 18 ice ages then? Or would that just be their maximum."Further evidence of ice ages occurs in sediment near the mouths of rivers. Researchers discovered that, in some river mouths, sediment had built up at least four different times. Before each build-up, the rivers had washed away most of the older sediment."
--They are getting slightly specific in their evidences, but they are still quite vague, they did not at all address how they concluded that it was the result of four different buildups of sediments, or evidence for the rivers washing away the older sediment."The researchers concluded that the times of sediment build-up were interglacial periods."
--There they go again, right into what the researchers concluded, from this rather vague presentation of this 'evidence'."Furthermore, due to erosion, little or nothing remains of the oldest deposits."
--hm.... Makes you think twice doesn't it?
<---------(end quotes from discovery sites)--I could keep going on all through the article, but, I think I have made my point."That these evidences corroborate, is evidence of multiple ice ages."
--To corraborate the evidence, you must first identify the evidence. I could say that oceans means there is life on mars, but It wouldn't mean anything to you if I didn't explain to you why it does."There is more evidence at the site given."
--From my readings of the article, it simply continues on assuming evolution happend and making vague statements regarding this evidence that they don't even talk about."Actually, a lot of the mammoths were in partial states of putrefaction, showing that freezing wasn’t necessarily immediate."
--Thats what I believe I just agreed to, I might not have been so clear though, I agree it did not have to be 'immediate', but within a short period of time, ie a couple hours to a couple days, possibly 2 weeks at the most, from the amazing condition we find their massive bodies so greatly preserved. Putrefacation can happen quite quickly though, it doesn't take years."I’ve previously linked magnetic variations & seafloor spreading as evidence of relative constancy of seafloor spreading.Staying on magnetism. The horizontal sedimentation on the seabed corroborates the ages of the basalt anomalies, as different sedimentary ages (layer upon layer) are also aligned by magnetic polarity, providing evidence that sedimentation was laid down slowly over millions of years, & not in a single year. If the one year flood were true, no magnetic anomalies would appear in the deposits.
If you have evidence of sea floor spreading as evidence of the flood, please present it. The observations I make, point away from a catastrophic flood, sea floor spreading has been relatively uniform."
--Actually there is evidence that variations in polarity were absolutely inconceivably high at one point in time.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp

quote:

---

A decade ago, Prvot and Coe (and colleagues) reported in three papers the evidence they had found of extremely rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded in lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon (USA). Scientists regard Steens Mountain as the best record of a magnetic reversal because the volcano spewed out 56 separate flows during that episode, each of these rock layers providing time-lapse snapshots of the reversal. Within one particular flow, Prvot and Coe discovered that rock toward the top showed a different magnetic orientation than did rock lower down. They interpreted this to mean that the field shifted about a day during the few days it took the single layer to cool. Such a rate of change is about 500 times faster than that seen in direct measurements of the field today, so,

​

most geomagnetists dismissed the claim by applying the principle of least astonishment ‘it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day’

​

on the origin and history of the field.

​

There the story would have ended, except that Coe and Prvot have continued their painstaking work. Now they have reported that the rate at which the orientation of the ancient magnetic field rotated reached an astounding 6 per day over an 8-day period, and have argued that these field changes recorded in these lava flows at Steens Mountain do reflect changes in the Earth’s main magnetic field.

---

"You cannot supply a mechanism that explains the deposition of the fossils."
--I do believe I can, as fossil succession is dependent an many variables and factors, not just hydrologic sorting, and habitat."ICR tries to explain the fossil sequence in various ways. First they say that the organisms had all lived at different elevations -- a translation of the "Ladder of Life" onto a topographical map with groupings ranging from marine organisms at the lowest elevations up to mammals at the highest — and that they all died at their assigned elevations and were buried there. This "victim habitat" apologetic falls apart immediately due to the many cases of marine fossils being found above land fossils.
Then the ICR continues its "Ladder of Life" thinking by saying that the more advanced organisms were faster, more agile, and could see the Flood coming, so they high-tailed it for high ground. Hence the fossil sequence is determined by the upward mobility of the victims (does this make them the original yuppies?). Not only does such mammals as the giant ground sloth cast doubt on this explanation, but also plants. Flowering plants do not appear until the early Creataceous; does this mean that they had uprooted themselves and headed for the hills? (one humorous poster does depict this) And there are still the "primitive" organisms found in the more recent strata; why could they have made the trek, especially the clams?
Finally, inspired perhaps by Morris' Ph.D. in Hydraulic Engineering, there is the hydrodynamic sorting apologetic, in which the order of burial is dependent upon the size and weight of the victim. This is directly contradicted by the fossil record. As Morris' own training should have told him, an object's hydrodynamic drag is directly proportional to its drag coefficient and its cross-sectional area, so objects with the same density and the same drag coefficient moving throught a fluid should be sorted according to
size (this is used all the time by mining engineers to separate some ores). This means, for example, that all small trilobites should be in higher strata than the larger ones, which is not at all what we do find. Even though the ICR tries to further explain the much higher placement of the vertebrates with with the bloating of their decaying bodies, this does not explain the order in which their fossils have been found.Another minor problem that the fossil sequence offers is the distribution of human and hominid remains -- namely only in the more recent rocks, which Flood Geologists associate with the highest elevations. But human populations traditionally concentrate themselves in the lower elevations, especially along the sea coast, which Flood Geologists associate with the lower rock strata that
geologists consider to be much older. Not only are human remains not found in these older strata, but neither are any human artifacts. If humans had indeed escaped the earlier Flood waters by fleeing to higher ground, then they not only had to succeed in evacuating the ENTIRE human population, but they also had to have dug up ALL their graveyards, dismantled ALL their dwellings, including the stone foundations, and carried ALL of it uphill as they fled the
rapidly advancing Flood waters, leaving absolutely no trace whatsoever that they had ever been, let alone lived, in the lower elevations. This idea is clearly ridiculous, yet what alternative does Flood Geology offer us?
Interestingly, this tendency for human populations to concentrate in the lowlands and along the coast could very well account the near-universal existence of flood stories probably resulting the only true single world-wide flood we know of (see the end of this file).&Graptolites. Extinct since early carboniferous. Colonial animals equipped with floats. In other words, they float, not sink. So why are they in the Carboniferous & not the Pleistocene?Ammonites. There are three different orders, alike in size & outward appearance, but appear in different rocks (slight overlap). The last appeared in the Cretaceous. Again, they ALL float, so why the early deposition?"
--G whiz, I respect this but I think it is a little much all at once wouldn't you say? Too much information to comment on in just one post, even you would agree I would hope. Pick some so we can start somewhere, this is a little much."Why bats & pterosaurs aren’t found together, indeed, why pterosaurs are extinct at all, given potential small size, pneumatic bones etc."
--It would seem that they would be located in relatively the same strata wouldn't it, as even in the condition of the Flood they would seem to fly for a little bit and after they are tired of flapping as soon as they hit water they can't survive and can't survive on driftwood unless the ocean is extreamly calm which would not be the case as they both are thought to 'wobble' in their walk, ie pterosaurs menuver on the ground the way bats do, extreamly ineffective in an attempt to survive a larger portion of the flood though a bat would be able to survive easier from its size. Also something to grasp is that bats are mammals haveing the adaptations of a mammal and pterosaurs are reptiles, thus to the best of our knowledge cold-blooded. The bat would be more effective."Why do shelled molluscs appear in the Cambrian & not at the bottom of the pre-cambrian? These babies go straight to the bottom. "
--molluscs have more effective menuverability than algae and would have been 'kicked up' and not deposited till the Cambrian. Sure they go straight to the bottom, but they don't just stay there when they are alive."There are species of rodents, felines, bats, primates, proboscideans etc. that are all mammals, & exist in the same habitats, that are the same size, are all hairy, subsist with the same lifestyle etc. Yet still are not found in the same aged sediments as other similar sized examples of rodents, felines, bats, primates, proboscideans etc! Given the factors leading to their depostion, they should be. Same is true of all taxonomic classifications."
--What exactly are the factors they are going by? It seems to be just shape characteristics and habitat."Why are cetaceans & nothosaurs, plesiosaurs, & icthyosaurs not found together, they are all marine, & all air breathers."
--unlike cetaceans, the nothosaurs, plesiosaurs, & icthyosaurs are reptiles, cetaceans are mammals, thus contributing to the ability to adapt as a mammal."When cetaceans float, their lungs can fill with water, making them denser than water, making them sink. Ray finned fishes that have enclosed swim bladders, that can’t fill with water. So cetaceans, nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs should exist below the first ray finned fish."
--This assumes that they were dead when they were burried, which would be extreamly rare and possibly never happend in the fossil record. If they were burried, dead or alive, it was a rapid burrial."Multicellular life is found at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the lowest surface point on the planet, so I would expect these arthropods at the bottom of pre Cambrian sediment, along with shelled molluscs, & (not) single celled organisms."
--Why would lower surface point contribute toward a different burrial sequence?"Single celled life in the oceans exist as phytoplankton in the upper layers, & are not distributed uniformly. The last to be deposited, not the first."
--Emphesize?"Grass, a flowering plant appears in the fossil record. Given grass floats to the bottom quite fast (your words), it should appear much sooner. It’s decay is irrelevant, it is COMMON in the record."
--As is evident by fossil pollen in pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as I was unaware of earlier, flowering plants must have existed to produce this pollen."What you need is a coherent model that can be applied anywhere, without contradiction. I put it to you that such a thing cannot exist without contradiction. Ergo, the fossils were not deposited in the biblical flood scenario."
--It seems there is an abundance of variables and factors that would contribute, and shouldn't be ignored."I get 6 miles from Everest being (nearly) 6 miles above sea level. I have shown with seafloor spreading that nothing catastrophic occurred from a plate tectonic point of view. Everest was roughly the same height 4,500 years ago. "--Everest along with the Himalayas was a little hill during the flood. These extra miles are not needed, as we can use the same amount of water as is in the oceans today."You require creationist ideas to show that Everest wasn’t 6 miles high, to show that your theory works. Circular argument."
--I can't find the circularity"Evidence of world geography in that day pls."
--It would be as if you highered ocean basins and lowered mountain ranges, what contredicts it."If it was giving birth, & both mother & infant died with the infant half in half out, is still death during childbirth. This doesn’t necessarily mean it was rapidly buried, but possibly came to rest on seabed with high H2S content preventing scavenging & decay. Nevertheless if it was rapidly buried, so what? landslide ? Its not evidence that 1/ The animal was killed because of burial, & 2/ That its burial was of a catastrophic nature."
--Though interesting and even relevant, what are the odds of that happening? Also how would a land slide constitute for the burrial of massive shcools of fish?"In fact there are marine fossils of Icthyosaurs & Plesiosaurs in rock with high sulphur content, indicative of Hydrogen Sulphide. Further backed up by the non discovery of ANY bottom dwellers. That is to say, the reptiles died, floated to the bottom, & due to the antiseptic nature of the seafloor, were preserved for slow burial. The H2S prevents bottom dwelling scavengers making a living. Further evidence of non-catastrophic fossil deposition."
--Does this bring decay to a halt as it is very well preserved. And how many hundreds or thousands of years would you allow for burrial or can we agree that it was a rapid burrial from by its greatly preserved details?"So, the list has been reduced to;"
--Reduction should be the following of a conclusion."None of these provide evidence of a flood, but hint at proposed mechanisms for it. All the above are explained adequately by mainstream geology. I need evidence that those mechanisms hinted at, were actually responsible."
--If it doesn't contredict the Flood then it is good evidence thereof as much as the ToE if not more accurately portrayed.------------------

"Take it easy, TC. You can't be expected to hold down the creation side single-handed."
--This is quite an exhausting discussion as the validating particepants are very much overweighted! Though I see it as quite a learning experience as it should be, knowledge through discussion and unbiased provision of science."I have admired your debating style"
--"even if I think you're mostly wrong"
--Hehe, oh the profound influence of known knowledge, there is much to learn, and ofcourse likewize we would all say the same to the other sides."(you've been putting out baloney with a high degree of eloquence.)"
--Hey now, whats my balony? How else is there to prosuade but through eloquency? I'm sure bickering is not the most valid debating technique!"I do seem to see burn out signs in your resposes of late."
--Slightly true, I have been since I have joined the debate doing more debating/discussing than research and am unable to thouroughly study the various of the sciences without the time. Also when I give a response I see it as I should give a very thourough response, going through every comment of the thread for the most effective presentation of the facts through the discussion and come to a feasable conclusion.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-21-2002]

"The Colorado river was never as wide as the Grand Canyon. As the river eroded more and more deeply into sedimentary rock, the exposed slopes were exposed to erosive forces (thermal cycling, rain, freezing, etc). The highest parts of the canyon have been exposed the longest, and so have retreated the most. Here's a good picture of the sloping sides of the Grand Canyon:"
--I could partly agree, though what is the blow toward the Flood on this assertion?"Also, meandering ("loops back and forth") is more commonly associated with very slow flow rather than floods."
--According to the theory on how it formed, both are expected.-------------------

"TC, I assume you taking the position that the sediments of the rocks of the Grand Canyon were laid down by the "great flood"? If so, you are facing the problem commented on by Mark24. Also see the following."
--lithification doesn't take millions/thousands of years, even partial lithification is only needed for grand canyon to form, it doesn't need to be as solid as rock, it needs to be strong enough to withstand the weight and pressure which isn't full lithification. Also it could have had many years and weeks to be as lithified as it needed to be. Also as evident by the considerably massive canyons formed by Mt. Saint Hellens, it is entirelly possible."Beginning near the end of the Miocene time and continuing to the present, almost the entire Rocky Mountain and adjacent regions were warped up as a large unit, producing a profound effect upon erosion. In the central Rockies, considerable faulting and volcanism occurred again. Uplift rejuvenated all streams and rivers by steepening their gradients, causing a long period of downcutting. Early Cenozoic basin-fill sediments were eroded and ranges were partially exhumed. Most dramatic has been the cutting of deep gorges superimposed directly across huge structures in hard, pre-Cenozoic rocks. The most famous example, the Grand Canyon, was formed durings late Cenozoic time as the Colorado Plateau was raised vertically.""Why is it then that we see virtually almost perfectly horizontal layering? If such uplift occured there wouldn't be this perfect horizontal shape of the layering from top to bottom. Or am I missing something."Geologic Strata - Sediments laid down by normal processes. The same process as can be seen at the present. Rivers, sand dunes, beaches, etc."
--Then with formations like the grand canyon how old is the topmost layer?"Comets: Extraterestrial objects - How are comets relevent to this discussion?"
--I guess comets would not be relevent for the Global Flood discussion but more for another thread, though I do believe there is a major problem as that comets exist today.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"lithification of the Grand Canyon."

​

--When Mt. Saint Helens erupted, it created a still massive miniature Canyon 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon. Producing enormously tall vertical canyons of strata created by that one catastrophe. Still standing there today and slowely becoming even more like the Grand canyon today through erosion. That little stream flowing at the bottom of it is not what created the canyon as is known from Mt. Saint Helens.

---

Now there is a valid comparison! Fresh, unconsolidated pyroclastic flows on the flank of a stratovolcano with continental shelf sediments on a passive tectonic margin. TC, do you get the least impression that these settings are just a little bit different?

quote:

---

"This evidence included striae on rocks and some huge boulders deposited far from their place of origin. By the mid-1800's, many scientists believed that the evidence resulted from the movement of glaciers that had covered vast areas of Europe and North America. By the late 1800's, researchers concluded that certain moraines and other material left behind by glaciers in North America resulted from four ice ages. They named these ages the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian, and Wisconsin."

​

--Now they are talking about 4 ice ages and how 'recearchers concluded', but by what evidence to they conclude this from? Boulders being moved from their place of origin is evidence of an ice age...period, not millions of years, not multiple ice ages, or anything like that, they lack the specifics.

---

TC complaining about lack of specifics? This from a person who wants to just ignore the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and such. Hmm, I'll have to think about that. Anyway there are a large number of ways to determine relative ages of glacial or other types of deposits. If you doubt me I'll get into more detail. However, suffice it to say that geologists have actually thought about these things.

quote:

---

"The researchers concluded that the times of sediment build-up were interglacial periods."

​

--There they go again, right into what the researchers concluded, from this rather vague presentation of this 'evidence'.

---

How do you know this? Did you read the literature?

quote:

---

"There is more evidence at the site given."

​

--From my readings of the article, it simply continues on assuming evolution happend and making vague statements regarding this evidence that they don't even talk about.

---

You have the advantage of me here. I thought this as about ice ages not evolution......

quote:

---

"You cannot supply a mechanism that explains the deposition of the fossils."

​

--I do believe I can, as fossil succession is dependent an many variables and factors, not just hydrologic sorting, and habitat.

---

Then please do so.

quote:

---

...(various details from the fossil record)...

​

Ammonites. There are three different orders, alike in size & outward appearance, but appear in different rocks (slight overlap). The last appeared in the Cretaceous. Again, they ALL float, so why the early deposition?"

​

--G whiz, I respect this but I think it is a little much all at once wouldn't you say? Too much information to comment on in just one post, even you would agree I would hope. Pick some so we can start somewhere, this is a little much.

---

You said you wanted data, specifics. Now you don't want them? How about just addressing one of these specifics?...

quote:

---

"Grass, a flowering plant appears in the fossil record. Given grass floats to the bottom quite fast (your words), it should appear much sooner. It’s decay is irrelevant, it is COMMON in the record."

​

--As is evident by fossil pollen in pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as I was unaware of earlier, flowering plants must have existed to produce this pollen.

---

I reiterate an earlier question. Why do people (creationists only, it seems) find pollen in the Hakatai Shale but no other fossils of flowering plants? Leaves, roots, branches and stems are common in the younger fossil record. Why can't "evolutionary" scientists find the same pollen in the Hakatai Shale? Surely someone would expose this evolutionist fraud.

quote:

---

"What you need is a coherent model that can be applied anywhere, without contradiction. I put it to you that such a thing cannot exist without contradiction. Ergo, the fossils were not deposited in the biblical flood scenario."

​

--It seems there is an abundance of variables and factors that would contribute, and shouldn't be ignored.

---

But this is EXACTLY what you do. You ignore the molluscs, the ammonites, the flowering plant fossils, the Permian, Triassic, and Jurassic periods.

quote:

---

"I get 6 miles from Everest being (nearly) 6 miles above sea level. I have shown with seafloor spreading that nothing catastrophic occurred from a plate tectonic point of view. Everest was roughly the same height 4,500 years ago. "

​

--Everest along with the Himalayas was a little hill during the flood. These extra miles are not needed, as we can use the same amount of water as is in the oceans today.

---

So Mt. Everest rose to some 30,000 feet in elevation in 2500 years or less? Do you have some evidence for this?

quote:

---

"Evidence of world geography in that day pls."
--It would be as if you highered ocean basins and lowered mountain ranges, what contredicts it.

---

How do you do this? Explain it geologically.

---

Percy wrote:
The Colorado river was never as wide as the Grand Canyon. As the river eroded more and more deeply into sedimentary rock, the exposed slopes were exposed to erosive forces (thermal cycling, rain, freezing, etc). The highest parts of the canyon have been exposed the longest, and so have retreated the most. Here's a good picture of the sloping sides of the Grand Canyon:

---

---

TC replied:
I could partly agree, though what is the blow toward the Flood on this assertion?

---

I was responding to your message 74 where you stated that the Grand Canyon had steep sides, and that this represented a problem for gradual formation over long time periods. You are correct that steep sides are a sign of rapid formation, and that's why I was explaining that to the contrary the Grand Canyon does not have steep sides and provided this picture: The sloping sides are a sign of a geological process known as slope retreat where a river cuts vertically down and the sides gradually erode back. The reason the Grand Canyon is extremely wide at the rim and extremely narrow at the bottom is because the edges at the rim have had the longest exposure to erosive forces. The canyon narrows as you descend because the lower you go the less time the sides at that level have been exposed.If the Grand Canyon had formed suddenly just a few thousand years ago the sides would be vertical.The canyon you describe forming rapidly at Mount St. Helens was actually created by pumping from Spirit Lake by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is from the US Geological Survey site:

---

"The debris avalanche raised the level of Spirit Lake 64 meters and dammed its natural outlet even higher..."

​

"On May 18, 1980, part of the debris avalanche slid into Spirit Lake, raising its level nearly 60 meters and damming its natural outlet to a higher level. Water displaced by the avalanche surged up the surrounding hillslopes, washing the blown-down timber from the lateral blast into the lake..."

​

"During the period from May 18, 1980, until November 1982, the level of Spirit Lake rose as it received runoff from rain and snow in the surrounding mountains. The rising waters threatened to breach the unstable debris-avalanche deposits damming the lake. A temporary solution, put into effect by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was the construction of a pumping station and pipeline near the southwest end of the lake until a more permanent solution could be devised. The pumping station went into operation in November 1982, creating a new source for the North Fork of the Toutle River. Water was released from the pump outlet at a constant rate of 5.0 cubic meters per second. It flowed across easily erodible volcanic deposits and caused rapid degradation and aggradation at cross-sections established downstream (Paine, 1984)."

---

And that's how the canyon described by Stephen Austin of ICR was formed.

---

Percy wrote:
Also, meandering ("loops back and forth") is more commonly associated with very slow flow rather than floods."

---

---

TC replied:
According to the theory on how it formed, both are expected.

---

Meandering paths are caused by slow flow. Rapidly flowing water capable of the rapid erosion required to create the Grand Canyon in days rather than eons flows straight. Rapidly flowing water cannot follow meandering paths.These superficial indications of great age are by themselves compelling, and they are further supported by

• Radiometric determinations of even greater ages for the sedimentary layers forming the sides of the canyon;
  ​
• The absence of any flood indications on the scale of the entire canyon. For example, as floods abate the extremely large boulders they're able to carry with them come to settle in place. The Grand Canyon has no such evidence.
  ​
• The debris piles that form in portions of the Grand Canyon such as the Tonto Plateau take long periods to form from the products of erosion off the canyon sides. The rate of erosion is consistent with the depth of these debris piles and an age of millions of years.

--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-21-2002]

TC,You gave me a long reply to message 78, thanks. I'll try & get a reply cooking asap, but it may take a few days.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--lithification doesn't take millions/thousands of years, even partial lithification is only needed for grand canyon to form, it doesn't need to be as solid as rock, it needs to be strong enough to withstand the weight and pressure which isn't full lithification. Also it could have had many years and weeks to be as lithified as it needed to be. Also as evident by the considerably massive canyons formed by Mt. Saint Hellens, it is entirelly possible.

​

---

I posted this before....... http://lordibelieve.org/time/age2.PDFJust the hardening of 700 feet of limestone would require 1.6 million years!80,000 - 90,000 years of infilling is required to harden a carbonate layer ONLY 10 meters thick with a constant source of ionic solution bottom to top. Flood conditions are generally antagonistic to such chemical reactions.You miss the point. If strata were layed down 4,500 years ago, it STILL wouldn't be the fully lithified structure we see today.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"Now there is a valid comparison! Fresh, unconsolidated pyroclastic flows on the flank of a stratovolcano with continental shelf sediments on a passive tectonic margin. TC, do you get the least impression that these settings are just a little bit different?"
--It would seem like that, but it wasn't hot magma flowing threw there, it was a mud flow that made the 'little grand canyon'."TC complaining about lack of specifics?"
--Ofcourse I 'complain' of a lack of specifics, infact its a far cry from specifics, it wouldn't be too smart to make an assertion off of these vague statements as you would need to know what it was that made them come up with these conclusions which they do not present."This from a person who wants to just ignore the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and such."
--I am not ignoring the Permian, Triassic, or Jurrassic, though you are ignoring the pre-cambrian, I don't think they just burried them there."Hmm, I'll have to think about that."
--Ok, I would like some 'specifics' if they are available."Anyway there are a large number of ways to determine relative ages of glacial or other types of deposits. If you doubt me I'll get into more detail."
--Please adhere."However, suffice it to say that geologists have actually thought about these things."
--I have no doubt, I would just like to know what it is they have thought about, that it needs human interperetation."How do you know this? Did you read the literature?"
--Yes I did, it is actually a copy-paste."You have the advantage of me here. I thought this as about ice ages not evolution..."
--..."Then please do so."
--As I have explained earlier...--Post 140

quote:

---

There are many factors, intelligence, agility/menuverability(could it climb treas or have the ability to menuver in the midst of chaos well), shape/structure (fur, density (muscle sinks and fat floats I believe from because of density), lungs and air, etc), environment, habitat (did it live on the bottom of the ocean, middle, top of the ocean, live on ground, could it fly, and if it could fly how long can it stay in the air and when it is on the ground what is its relevance to menuverability (pterosaurs are thought to 'waddle' simmilar to the way bats menuver on ground as is shown by pelvis structure), also how can this animal adapt to quick changing environments, ie ice age or rapid climate changes could have caused virtually all non-insulated animals to die quickly and be subject to quick burrial on the next sediment deposits with little rustling around of the bodies. Hydrologic sorting plays a very small part in the reason they are burried the way they are.

---

--I would like examples on what cannot cooperate with factors and variables."You said you wanted data, specifics. Now you don't want them? How about just addressing one of these specifics?"
--You would need to scroll down, as I have addressed a portion of the list."I reiterate an earlier question. Why do people (creationists only, it seems) find pollen in the Hakatai Shale but no other fossils of flowering plants?"
--Bias, I am still unaware to even a rebutal to these claims on the internet, I would be interested in reading it if there exist one."Leaves, roots, branches and stems are common in the younger fossil record. Why can't "evolutionary" scientists find the same pollen in the Hakatai Shale? Surely someone would expose this evolutionist fraud."
--If it is fraud...let there be a rebutal."But this is EXACTLY what you do. You ignore the molluscs, the ammonites, the flowering plant fossils, the Permian, Triassic, and Jurassic periods."
--I responded to molluscs, I didn't respond to ammonites, and I responded to flowering plants as I am still waiting a rebutal for molluscs and pollen grains."So Mt. Everest rose to some 30,000 feet in elevation in 2500 years or less? Do you have some evidence for this?"
--I just gave it, the rate of uplift was simply faster then."How do you do this? Explain it geologically."
--Ok I have seen this question numerous times, I don't know what it is that I am missing here, I will attempt an emphasis. I don't know what is so hard to grasp, we all know that uplift occurs right? So if uplift is pushing the mountains 'up' that means....they used to be...lower? Going back in time it doesn't matter what scale your looking at, elevation would be equalized with the rest of the land. All I am saying is that this process moved much faster long ago.------------------

edge I get 6 miles from Everest being (nearly) 6 miles above sea level. I have shown with seafloor spreading that nothing catastrophic occurred from a plate tectonic point of view. Everest was roughly the same height 4,500 years ago. TrueCreation Everest along with the Himalayas was a little hill during the flood. These extra miles are not needed, as we can use the same amount of water as is in the oceans today. edge So Mt. Everest rose to some 30,000 feet in elevation in 1800 years or less? Do you have some evidence for this? TrueCreation It would be as if you highered ocean basins and lowered mountain ranges, what contradicts it. The rate of uplift was simply faster then. edge How do you do this? Explain it geologically. TrueCreation Ok I have seen this question numerous times, I don't know what it is that I am missing here, I will attempt an emphasis. I don't know what is so hard to grasp, we all know that uplift occurs right? So if uplift is pushing the mountains 'up' that means....they used to be...lower? Going back in time it doesn't matter what scale your looking at, elevation would be equalized with the rest of the land. All I am saying is that this process moved much faster long ago.

I think what you might be missing is that though uplift is a well known and widely accepted geologic process, it cannot be invoked merely because it's convenient to your point of view. Edge is asking for the evidence of radical unprecedented uplift of the Himalayas in the last 5000 years.You reply, "What contradicts it," and the answer is, "Nearly everything."First, it is the precise wrong question to ask. I could insist there are green martians living beneath that planet's surface and ask, "What contradicts it?" The answer is, "Nothing," but that doesn't give the little green men any substance.Second, there is already plenty of evidence contradicting your proposal. The Himalayas are composed of ancient sea floor millions of years old:

http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology_visual.html

The path the Indian subcontinent followed on its way toward collision with Asia is well documented in the orientation of rock magnetized by the earth's magnetic field:

Error - University of Houston

The radiometric ages of these rocks allows calibration of the rate of progess of the Indian subcontinent and indicates its speed was as much as 15 centimeters per year:

India VR

It continues to move north, as indicated by measurements using GPS (Global Positioning Satellites):

http://www.leica-geosystems.com/...pplication/mteverest2.htm

And the Himalayas continue to elevate at about 2.5 inches/year:

http://www.extremescience.com/HighestElevation.htm

So you have two tasks before you:

• Explain why the current evidence is wrong or misinterpreted.
  ​
• Produce your own evidence for a relatively recent origin.

There is also the larger question of why God would constrain himself to operate through natural forces in just the way you propose. Presumably God could have operated completely miraculously, creating all the water by miracle and flooding even the tall Himalayas, and later removing the water in the same way. How do you exclude this possibility? Then there are the other Creationist proposals similar to your own in that they attempt to take a naturalistic rather than miraculous approach. By what evidence do you reject the Creationist view that the water came from a vapor canopy? Or the one where the water flowed from beneath the ground and then returned there?What these Creationist views have in common is lack of positive evidence and inconsistency (often severe) with already available evidence. It's why Edge keeps pushing you for evidence and why Moose calls your ideas baloney. You need evidence.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I think what you might be missing is that though uplift is a well known and widely accepted geologic process, it cannot be invoked merely because it's convenient to your point of view. Edge is asking for the evidence of radical unprecedented uplift of the Himalayas in the last 5000 years.

---

Yes, this is my main point. Where is your evidence and why ignore so much of the other data pertinent to the discussion?And indeed, we can't just go uplifting continents and downdropping ocean basins. There are reasons that the continents are high and reasons why the ocean basins are low. And they always have been.Also I'd like to point out that the uplift of the Himalayas would have had to occur between 4500 years ago and probably about 2000 years ago because we have no (that's NO) record of them ever being low. Now, is it just a coincidence that the Himalayas would stop rising just at the same time that we began observing them? And is it just a coincidence that the relative rate of motion between the Indian and Asian plates is concordant with the present known uplift of the Himalayas? We know the rate that the Himalayas are risig now. Why would it have to be different in the past other than to fit the creationist fable?

--Oh my gosh I am soooo frustrated, I was finished with a reply to your post Percipent and I submited it and I accidently closed it, I thought that it posted because it posts rather quickly after you hit the submit button, but then I realized that I wasn't even connected to the internet afterwords, it took me about 2 hours to make the reply and it was vastly long, I'll do it again, but I'm not going to be able to do much emphesis as I did in my previous attempt because I'm about to throw my monitor to the ground allready."I think what you might be missing is that though uplift is a well known and widely accepted geologic process, it cannot be invoked merely because it's convenient to your point of view. Edge is asking for the evidence of radical unprecedented uplift of the Himalayas in the last 5000 years."
--I agree I wouldn't just say this because it is convenient to my point, it simply is relevant and feasable on the contrary."You reply, "What contradicts it," and the answer is, "Nearly everything."
--I would of course disagree with it being nearly everything, or even anything to that matter."First, it is the precise wrong question to ask. I could insist there are green martians living beneath that planet's surface and ask, "What contradicts it?" The answer is, "Nothing," but that doesn't give the little green men any substance."
--Though your analogy seems valid, it has a falacy that inflicts it on the basis that we cannot observe the little green men, we can observe uplift and realize that we cannot assume that it has always been the same rate."Second, there is already plenty of evidence contradicting your proposal. The Himalayas are composed of ancient sea floor millions of years old"
--I would disagree on the millions of years old, this 'ancient sea floor' would be expected as the world was covered with water! Also it would be reasonable to think that Indea was at one point not connected to asia the way it is today."The path the Indian subcontinent followed on its way toward collision with Asia is well documented in the orientation of rock magnetized by the earth's magnetic field:"
--Though the .pdf seems interesting, it doesn't seem to be reflecting the information, rather it seems as it is a presentation not including much of the information that would have been emphesised during the presentation. This still does not excuse the fact that Manetic polarity anomalies were up to 500 times faster at one time."The radiometric ages of these rocks allows calibration of the rate of progess of the Indian subcontinent and indicates its speed was as much as 15 centimeters per year:"
--I was unable to find anything on calibration through radiometric dating methods. Also this does not excuse the assumption that radiometric dating methods are reliable, dispite their assumptions being much of a problem."It continues to move north, as indicated by measurements using GPS (Global Positioning Satellites):"
--I would agree with this, though I would question the accuracy of the measurements as even they said themselves they are measuring from point of the ice, they have not measured form the point of the actual mountain, ie the rock. I find no problem in this."And the Himalayas continue to elevate at about 2.5 inches/year:"
--I would agree with this though I did find something rather interesting, one of your sources says that the Himalayas lifts at 5mm anually and another says that it is the 2.4 inches annually, and the one that says 2.4 also says it is twice as much as previously thought, still much more than even 5mm.
--Also interesting is that the source that says 2.4 also makes this statement:

quote:

---

A growth rate of 2.4 inches per year doesn't sound like very much. If you think about it, that means in the last 2,000 years the Himalayans have risen almost a mile into the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere!

---

--Meaning that uplift would not have to be much faster than this, though the evidence says it moved enormously faster than this at one point in time. It didn't have to stay at that inconceivable pace."Explain why the current evidence is wrong or misinterpreted."
--I would not say that all of it is 'wrong' though I would have to say that it is missinterpereted as to saying it takes millions/thousands of years."Produce your own evidence for a relatively recent origin."
--All the evidence can be just as consistant with what the geography would have been like during the Global Flood as with a uniformitarian perspective, though I feel that it is more consistant with the Flood."There is also the larger question of why God would constrain himself to operate through natural forces in just the way you propose. Presumably God could have operated completely miraculously, creating all the water by miracle and flooding even the tall Himalayas, and later removing the water in the same way."
--Many ask this question, and the simple answer is that, God wanted to leave evidence of his judgement so we would know that it really happend. My belief is that this is the way he did it for that reason, he even said it himself that he did it naturally in Genesis."How do you exclude this possibility? Then there are the other Creationist proposals similar to your own in that they attempt to take a naturalistic rather than miraculous approach."
--I would not discredit the possibility, as it is entirely possible, though I feel the evidence says otherwize, and he said otherwize himself."By what evidence do you reject the Creationist view that the water came from a vapor canopy?"
--I would not reject the vapor canopy, though I would not validate its being as a main source of water."Or the one where the water flowed from beneath the ground and then returned there?"
--I would say that a large amount of water came from underneith the ground, though it wouldn't have been a huge water source, possibly only 10-100ft of depth if through the oceans. Some would say this cannot happen because it would dissipate or evaporate from the intense heat. I would say sure, but where is it going to go? Its going to stay in the mantle untill it is able to be unleashed by a volcanic eruption as we see today there is water present in volcano's."What these Creationist views have in common is lack of positive evidence and inconsistency (often severe) with already available evidence. It's why Edge keeps pushing you for evidence and why Moose calls your ideas baloney. You need evidence."
--The evidence can be interpereted just as easy for a Global flood, and this is proof of feasability, not neccessarely that it happend, though I think it overwhelming evidence that it happend and that it fits easier with the Global Flood than uniformitarian time scale.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Oh my gosh I am soooo frustrated, I was finished with a reply to your post Percipent and I submited it and I accidently closed it, I thought that it posted because it posts rather quickly after you hit the submit button, but then I realized that I wasn't even connected to the internet afterwords, it took me about 2 hours to make the reply and it was vastly long, I'll do it again, but I'm not going to be able to do much emphesis as I did in my previous attempt because I'm about to throw my monitor to the ground allready.

​

---

TC,Why not form your reply in a word doc or something & save it. This way, if it all goes tits up, you still have a copy. I've had exactly the same frustration, & know how you feel.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

TC,A question, at what absolute age was the basalt/lava dated at for the 500 times faster magnetic anomoly episode?The problem remains. You have no evidence that the Himalayas uplifted significantly faster than today. If you did, you would have presented it by now, so why continue to assert it did?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"Yes, this is my main point. Where is your evidence and why ignore so much of the other data pertinent to the discussion?"
--What data have I ignored?"And indeed, we can't just go uplifting continents and downdropping ocean basins. There are reasons that the continents are high and reasons why the ocean basins are low. And they always have been."
--So you deny that uplift occurs, and that it has always been the same elevation?"Also I'd like to point out that the uplift of the Himalayas would have had to occur between 4500 years ago and probably about 2000 years ago because we have no (that's NO) record of them ever being low."
--They had to be low as there is abundance of sea life on the tops of the Himalayas as Percipent has pointed out. Thus was once very much covered with water, which either would require your 6 miles of water or the elevation was lower.". Now, is it just a coincidence that the Himalayas would stop rising just at the same time that we began observing them?"
--But they didn't stop rising, they still are, slowely though and we have only obtained accurate measurements for about 10 years."And is it just a coincidence that the relative rate of motion between the Indian and Asian plates is concordant with the present known uplift of the Himalayas?"
--No that would be expected, if asia was moving at 1mph and Indea was moving at 10 miles per hour, you wouldn't expect an ocean basin to form, ie sinkage."We know the rate that the Himalayas are risig now."
--Are we contredicting ourselves? I thought you said, "Now, is it just a coincidence that the Himalayas would stop rising just at the same time that we began observing them?""Why would it have to be different in the past other than to fit the creationist fable"
--If a catacalismic event occured, ie the the mantal blowing its top through the earths crust, it would have been something like the analogy of blown up balloon, if you put a hole in it and it doesn't pop, it will first leak out very rapidly but as preasure decreases it will go down to a slow almost uniform pace, kind of like the curve of the line on the carbon14 radiometric dating scale.------------------