Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

quote:

---

TrueCreation: Theres a couple problems with Grand canyon, It loops back and forth, and it also has steep sides. A looping meandering river would be an 'old age river' and a low slope like the mississippi. Steep sides indicate fast moving, rough rivers, 'plowing' their way through the riverbed. Grand canyon has both. The colorado river could not have formed it over millions of years. This process could have took months or mabye years. The seiments got shook up, washed into this spot along with the massive amounts of water. And when the Flood was over and it was settling and washing away, the Grand lake was left behind on higher than sea level terrain, and after a while when It finally found an area where it could spill over or find a weak spot to break through, it washed out catastrophicly forming grand canyon in a matter of hours or days. Indeed Sediments would have to of at least partially lithified, though it would not have to happen instantly, it could have taken months or possibly years. And when the waters rushed through it carved out and massivly plowed its way down through the small canyon that would have formed when the waters first ran down earlier much slower enough to create a passageway for the next spill of Grand lake. It seems to be a logical explination and is very possible. The Flood could have indeed formed Grand canyon and similarely the other canyons in the world. I could also explain how the mississipi formed the way it did.

---

I think that a looping meandering river merely reflects that the river was flowing on a low slope (a low stream gradient). The steep canyon sides reflects the durability of the rocks - They are solid enough not to collapse into the canyon.The conventional wisdom is that the Colorado river cut down as tectonic uplift of the Colorado Plateau happened.As for the rest of your posting: I think much of it was already covered in Mark24's message #61. Would you care to narrow things down to something more specific?I think that potential evidences for the "great flood" would be limited to erosion and sedimentation (edit note: "sedimentation" would include any fossils). The other topics of your list are irrelevant.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--Theres a couple problems with Grand canyon, It loops back and forth, and it also has steep sides. A looping meandering river would be an 'old age river' and a low slope like the mississippi. Steep sides indicate fast moving, rough rivers, 'plowing' their way through the riverbed. Grand canyon has both. The colorado river could not have formed it over millions of years. This process could have took months or mabye years. The seiments got shook up, washed into this spot along with the massive amounts of water. And when the Flood was over and it was settling and washing away, the Grand lake was left behind on higher than sea level terrain, and after a while when It finally found an area where it could spill over or find a weak spot to break through, it washed out catastrophicly forming grand canyon in a matter of hours or days. Indeed Sediments would have to of at least partially lithified, though it would not have to happen instantly, it could have taken months or possibly years. And when the waters rushed through it carved out and massivly plowed its way down through the small canyon that would have formed when the waters first ran down earlier much slower enough to create a passageway for the next spill of Grand lake. It seems to be a logical explination and is very possible. The Flood could have indeed formed Grand canyon and similarely the other canyons in the world. I could also explain how the mississipi formed the way it did.

​

---

So now were saying the Canyon formed after the flood abated?Regarding lithification of the Grand Canyon.If all fossiliferous strata of the globe were in a soft & unconsolidated condition following the single year of deposition some 4,350 years ago, how could the great bulk of that sediment have become consolidated (lithified) into the dense, hard condition in which it exists today? (Science & Earth History, Arthur N. Strahler, 1999, p279) This is an argument not just against the Grand Canyon, but sedimentary rock formations globally.He goes on to point out that the transformation of soft, water saturated sediment into rock could not possibly take place in a few thousand years. Eg Thick shales, deposited as muds & clays underwent de-watering in large amounts to form a dense, fissile shale. ie water was forced out of the shale in 4,350 years, under conditions of extremely low permability. No go.Also, modern carbonate sediments have porosity of 60-70%. Ancient limestones have a porosity of less than 2%, meaning the pores are filled in by calcium carbonate deposited by water, over time, vastly more time than 4,500 years. If pores were filled by compaction, then the same de-watering problems arise. In either case, more time is required than in a biblical flood scenario.Also, sandstone formations. Strongly cemented by calcium carbonate or silica, formerly loose sand. This requires slow circulation of ion bearing solutions over spans of time, again, vastly longer than the flood allows.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.So please present evidence that the Grand Canyon was made in a couple of years.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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

The 'Ice Age' (the only ice age) was a result of a Massive Global Flood. What is this evidence that supports multiple ice ages? How do scientists make these conclusions on this 'unknown' evidence?

​

---

The evidence isn’t unknown, I included a link; http://school.discovery.com/homeworkhelp/worldbook/atozscience/i/270780.htmlEvidence of ice ages and their climates. During the Pleistocene Epoch, as many as 18 ice ages may have occurred. Each ice age consisted of many warmer and colder times of varying length and intensity. The amount of ice also varied. 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.
Evidence from oceans comes from cores (cylindrical samples) drilled out of sediment in the ocean floor. For example, researchers count the shells of different kinds of tiny ocean-dwelling animals called foraminifera found at various depths in the cores. Some of these species grow well in warm water, while others grow well in cold water. By comparing the numbers of the species at a given depth, researchers estimate the temperature of the water when the specimens were deposited.
Scientists determine how much ice was locked in glaciers and ice sheets by measuring the isotopes (forms) of oxygen in foraminifera shells. Two isotopes of oxygen occur most often in nature. One of them, known as O-18, is heavier and much rarer than the other, O-16.
A water molecule consists of two atoms of hydrogen (H) and one atom of oxygen (O). Water molecules with O-16 evaporate more readily than do water molecules that have O-18. The O-16 isotope therefore accumulates in snow and ice sheets, while O-18 stays more in the ocean. Thus, during ice ages, when the sea level was low, the ocean had a higher percentage of O-18 than during interglacial periods.
The shells of foraminifera contain carbonate, which consists of one atom of carbon (C) and three atoms of oxygen (O). Foraminifera obtain the oxygen for their carbonate from the ocean water. Thus, foraminifera that lived during ice ages accumulated a higher percentage of O-18 in their shells than did foraminifera that lived during interglacial periods.That these evidences corroborate, is evidence of multiple ice ages.There is more evidence at the site given.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Mark24 said:
"You just need water that freezes, to freeze a mammoth. Your source claims that freezing must happen quickly to —150 deg F, or internal temperature would destroy the food in their alimentary canal??!!"

​

TrueCreation said:
--I agree, you just need water in some form to freeze anything, I don't know exactly if you must freeze a mammoth at -150 degrees Ferenheight or not, but I know it must freeze in a couple hours, I would agree it would have to be to freeze the food in any area of the alimentary canal though I have not found after some research any reference for green plants in the alimentary canal except in the mouth and teeth, which doubtedly would need -150 degrees ferenheight. The mammoth argument is not a good argument by its lonesome unless you include the ice age.

​

---

FYI.
Actually, a lot of the mammoths were in partial states of putrefaction, showing that freezing wasn’t necessarily immediate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Magnetic variations I don't know too much about, but I do believe that sea floor spreading is very good evidence of the cause of catastrophe of the Flood. Is there evidence against it?

​

---

I’ve previously linked magnetic variations & seafloor spreading as evidence of relative constancy of seafloor spreading.Also, magnetic anomalies, translated into a symmetrical, mirror image set of stripes of alternating magnetic polarity either side of the mid ocean ridges show a general cyclical reversal of polarities. The basalt, as it solidified, aligned itself in accordance with field strength & polarity as existed at the time of solidification. As polarity changed, newly formed basalt (pushing the older rock outward, away from the ridge) was aligned magnetically opposite to the previous band. As time goes by & more & more basalt is deposited, polarity bands emerge. The width of the bands are indicative of the speed of continental drift as intervals between magnetic polarity reversals are corroborated. There IS small variation, but nothing that would send India hurtling into the Asian mainland, that would cause the uplift of the Himalayas inside 4,000 years.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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"We’ve done this one, the flood fails to explain the depositions of fossils."
--How so? Name aspects that it can't explain.

​

---

You cannot supply a mechanism that explains the deposition of the fossils. http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/geology.htmlICR 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?Also;Specifically from our own discussions on this thread,Why bats & pterosaurs aren’t found together, indeed, why pterosaurs are extinct at all, given potential small size, pneumatic bones etc.If amphibians are the best adapted terrestrial vertebrates ie they live in water much of the time, they should be the last deposited, not first.Why do shelled molluscs appear in the Cambrian & not at the bottom of the pre-cambrian? These babies go straight to the bottom. Also, why do soft bodied cephalopods first appear in the same layer, they should float, be suspended etc.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.There are cetaceans that are of similar size to nothosaurs, plesiosaurs, & icthyosaurs, & survived where they didn’t, why? Why did some cetaceans die out & not others?Why are cetaceans & nothosaurs, plesiosaurs, & icthyosaurs not found together, they are all marine, & all air breathers.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.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.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.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.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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"That there was shaking & baking, is not in issue. That this could lead to flooding nearly 6 miles deep, & would start & finish in 190 days, is."

​

--Shaking & bakin wasn't my analogy. To start a flood miles deep (in some areas i don't know where you get 6 miles) is very possible with the world geography in that day.

​

---

I understand shaking & baking was attributable to Moose.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.is very possible with the world geography in that day. You require creationist ideas to show that Everest wasn’t 6 miles high, to show that your theory works. Circular argument.Evidence of world geography in that day pls. [QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:mark said:"So even reptiles die during childbirth."True Creation said:--It wasn't whether it died during child birth, its that it was in the process of giving birth (it was still in the mothers 'brith canal'), indicating rapid burrial for itself and all the other unfortunate candidates around it in the area.
[/B][/QUOTE]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.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.So, the list has been reduced to;Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Earthquakes
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil Formations
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Metamorphic Rock
Limestone
Salt DomesI repeat.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.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Just a thought:If there was a global flood, with massive, rapid plate movements and other processes, what would the evidence look like? I mean with what could we use as a reference? Definetly not local flooding.Also what sucks for us Creationists is that God could also erase any signs of intervention. Afterall the purpose of the global flood was to 'wipe the slate clean' and start over. That would mean the only 'evidence' is God's Word as read from the Bible. Hardly scientific, I agree, but that doesn't mean it wasn't so.------------------
John Paul

---

TrueCreation writes:
Theres a couple problems with Grand canyon, It loops back and forth, and it also has steep sides.

---

Vertical sides are indications of rapid erosion, while sloping sides such as those at the Grand Canyon are indicative of a geological process known as slope retreat.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: Also, meandering ("loops back and forth") is more commonly associated with very slow flow rather than floods.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-04-2002]

John-Paul,

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Just a thought:

​

If there was a global flood, with massive, rapid plate movements and other processes, what would the evidence look like? I mean with what could we use as a reference? Definetly not local flooding.

​

---

If there's no evidence to support global flooding of biblical proportions, don't infer it. It's not geologies problem there is no evidence. To infer it without evidence is unscientific, which is my reason for arguing. This is "scientific" creationism after all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

Also what sucks for us Creationists is that God could also erase any signs of intervention. Afterall the purpose of the global flood was to 'wipe the slate clean' and start over. That would mean the only 'evidence' is God's Word as read from the Bible. Hardly scientific, I agree, but that doesn't mean it wasn't so.

​

---

I stand to be corrected, but I thought there was no further divine interference after flood waters subsided? At least this is the ICR's stance.Also, if God was wiping the slate clean, he would hardly leave kilometers of sedimentary rock all over the place. Or 6 mile high mountains hanging around.Again, my argument is that it just isn't science. I'm arguing with TrueCreation, who maintains the evidence points to a biblical flood. I'm just asking what evidence? If there is none, believe the bible by all means, just don't pretend it's corroberated by science.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-04-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-04-2002]

Mark24:
John-Paul,
I stand to be corrected, but I thought there was no further divine interference after flood waters subsided? At least this is the ICR's stance.John Paul:
There needn't be any further intervention after the flood waters subsided. God, being the Almighty Creator, could have (yes could have) erased all signs of intervention during the flood. Again that is the problem facing Creationists in trying to provide evidence. And yes, it is a problem. That said, is also important to note that ICR or AiG are not direct pipelines to the Lord and therefore they too can only speculate- using the Bible as a reference.But actually I still wondering "what do we use as a point of reference to find evidence for such a catastrophe?" What do we compare what we do see, knowing that is so many thousands of years and other processes after, with?------------------
John Paul

Bloody hell, that was a fast reply!Sorry, I edited the main body while you posted this.But there does need to be divine intervention after the flood. All that sedimentary rock needs to be lithified, quicksharp, AFTER the colorado rvr cut through it.

It has occured to me, to wonder where the evolution vs. creationism debate would be, had there been no mention in the Bible of the "great flood" of Noah's time.Without this flood, the creationist view wouldn't have any ammunition to try to discount the implications of the geologic column (Yes indeed, I'm a big fan of the geologic column!!!).Moose
(gotta go and find squirrel now)------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-05-2002]

What would the earth look like had the "great flood" happened.The best image I can come up with is perhaps a predominent landscape like the badlands found in parts of the western U.S. Not that I can in any way envision a continent covering flood ever happening in the short time span proposed by the Bible.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"I think that a looping meandering river merely reflects that the river was flowing on a low slope (a low stream gradient). The steep canyon sides reflects the durability of the rocks - They are solid enough not to collapse into the canyon."
--So there is no refutation to the claim that the Flood could have made the Grand canyon and canyons alike? I agree, in order for it to stay a canyon the sides would certainly have to be solid enough to still be there without collapsing . And I also agree to a degree that the steep canyon sides partly reflects durability of rocks, in order for a canyon to be created the rock it flows threw must be relatively less durable."The conventional wisdom is that the Colorado river cut down as tectonic uplift of the Colorado Plateau happened."
--What is your resource to this claim? I was unsuccessful of locating it on any search engine, I would be interested in reading it."As for the rest of your posting: I think much of it was already covered in Mark24's message #61. Would you care to narrow things down to something more specific?"
--He didn't cover too much, but, I have some questions yes, for starters, how does the uniforitarian time scale explain geologic layers (strata in a detailed fasion), Coal and oil formations, and comets."I think that potential evidences for the "great flood" would be limited to erosion and sedimentation (edit note: "sedimentation" would include any fossils). The other topics of your list are irrelevant."
--I think otherwize, these other aspects of science that we deal with and observe today are very relevant to either a young earth and/or the Global Flood, especially when associated with geology. It would not consist of simply strata, erosion, and fossils.---------------

quote:

---

Moose: I think that a looping meandering river merely reflects that the river was flowing on a low slope (a low stream gradient). The steep canyon sides reflects the durability of the rocks - They are solid enough not to collapse into the canyon.
TrueCreation: So there is no refutation to the claim that the Flood could have made the Grand canyon and canyons alike? I agree, in order for it to stay a canyon the sides would certainly have to be solid enough to still be there without collapsing. And I also agree to a degree that the steep canyon sides partly reflects durability of rocks, in order for a canyon to be created the rock it flows threw must be relatively less durable.

---

quote:

---

Mark24 (from message 61):The canyon provides evidence of downward water erosion. If there was a flood of many miles depth, there would be erosion on the same scale on the sides of the canyon, & it simply wouldn’t be a canyon. Also, the sediments that make the canyon would have to have lithified practically instantly upon deposition, to avoid being swept away.

---

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.

quote:

---

Moose: The conventional wisdom is that the Colorado river cut down as tectonic uplift of the Colorado Plateau happened."
TrueCreation: What is your resource to this claim? I was unsuccessful of locating it on any search engine, I would be interested in reading it.

---

I was something I pulled out of my often unrelieable memory.
Documentation I now cite (from "Evolution of the Earth", 2nd Edition, Robert H. Dott, Jr. and Roger L. Batten, 1976, McGraw-Hill, pp.385-386):"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."

quote:

---

Moose: As for the rest of your posting: I think much of it was already covered in Mark24's message #61. Would you care to narrow things down to something more specific?
TrueCreation: He didn't cover too much, but, I have some questions yes, for starters, how does the uniforitarian time scale explain geologic layers (strata in a detailed fasion), Coal and oil formations, and comets.

---

Geologic Strata - Sediments laid down by normal processes. The same process as can be seen at the present. Rivers, sand dunes, beaches, etc.Coal - Organic detritus (not a coal expert, but I suspect in a swamp/bog environment), buried by sediments laid down by normal processes. Heat and pressure alters the material into coal.Petroleum - Organic detritus, buried by sediments. Heat and presure alters and distills the material, releasing fluids. Fluid migrate to a porous reservoir rock.Comets: Extraterestrial objects - How are comets relevent to this discussion?Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

Moose said:

​

"I think that a looping meandering river merely reflects that the river was flowing on a low slope (a low stream gradient). The steep canyon sides reflects the durability of the rocks - They are solid enough not to collapse into the canyon."

​

TrueCreation said:

​

--So there is no refutation to the claim that the Flood could have made the Grand canyon and canyons alike? I agree, in order for it to stay a canyon the sides would certainly have to be solid enough to still be there without collapsing . And I also agree to a degree that the steep canyon sides partly reflects durability of rocks, in order for a canyon to be created the rock it flows threw must be relatively less durable.

​

---

re. the rate of erosion for the Grand Canyon to reach its present level in a few post flood years, see message 78. If this happened, the rocks would need to be unlithified (I actually doubt even if they were unlithified, the rates of erosion required could be met), how could this be? Given the rocks are in an entirely hardened state today? http://lordibelieve.org/time/age2.PDFSedimentary Deposition and Lithification
The process of building sediment layers can be either fast or slow. However the overall sequence of a
series of sediment layers, called a column, indicates long ages transpiring between the depositions of layers, as well as during deposition of some layers. Consequently it is usually stated that sedimentation is a slow process. This refers to the overall column building process, not a particular sediment itself. See Wonderly, 1977, pp. 48-67, 127-147, for a good overall discussion of sedimentation and lithification.
The sediment layers frequently have sharp boundaries between different layers. This is easily observed in
any area where the layers have been exposed such as deep road cuts, surface mines or in natural canyons. I
have personally inserted a knife blade between the boundary of the Coconino sandstone and the Hermit shale layers in the Grand Canyon. Above the blade is desert sandstone, below the blade is an entirely different type of rock, marine shale. Wonderly, 1987, pp. 15-22, documents many examples of such boundaries in Appalachian sediments. These sharp boundaries have a great deal to say about the nature of the deposition of the sediments. When sediments are initially deposited they are wet and uncompacted. The lithification process begins by squeezing out the excess waters in the deeper part of the sediment. However, the sediment is not yet lithified. The spaces between the particles is either filled with water, or simply void. The particles must be chemically cemented together to form lithified stone. While this process is analogous to making brick or concrete, it does not involve the same chemical reactions. Therefore it is a mistake to assume that since brick and concrete harden quickly, likewise sediments could also rapidly lithify. Not so. In shales, the clay particles have a natural cohesion but tend to form very soft rocks. Chemical precipitates are self cementing into hard polycrystals.But in sandstone and large conglomerate, the cementing is generally accomplished by an ionic
solution of silica dioxide or calcium carbonate solution filing the inter-particle voids and subsequently
precipitating out to cement the particles together. Each type of rock needs a specific ionic solution moving
through the structure. Sandstone needs silica dioxide, biogenic limestone needs calcium carbonate. These
solutions are generally derived by the dissolution of the particulate surface: an inherently slow process.Yet this hardening must be completed before the overlying deposition occurs. If the underlying surface
was not already hard, the overlying sediments would simply co-mingle and grade into one another. Such a
grading is observed between some layers. Where they do not do this -- were sharp boundaries exist -- it
indicates that the underlying sediment had already completed the hardening process, called lithification.
Estimates of the time involved for carbonate cementing have been made by Bathurst, as cited by Wonderly,
from known depositions. He calculates that 80,000 - 90,000 years of infilling is required to harden a carbonate layer 10 meters thick with a constant source of ionic solution bottom to top. This is a chemical reaction rate process that cannot be accelerated by flood conditions. Instead flood conditions are generally antagonistic to such reactions.Many of these boundaries exhibit evidence of subsequent erosion after hardening and before the next layer was deposited. Some of these upper surfaces exhibit polygonal mud cracks, showing clearly that surface-drying occurred. This does not occur under water. Clearly such a surface had to be above water when the drying occurred. Yet these mud-crack surfaces may be buried under more marine sediments above. This
only makes sense if the lower sediment was first deposited under water, then the water receded or the land was raised up to allow for surface drying, then the land was again covered by water to allow for cementing and further deposition of sediments. Judson and Kauffman show an excellent example of such fossil mud cracks from the Beekmantown Formation in Pennsylvania. Many amateurs have seen such structures and mistaken them for fossilized turtle shells. The photo shows a sample of mudcrack from an Arkansas creek bed. Clearly this is a long term process, (which cannot occur in the middle of a massive flood). Wonderly, 1987, pp. 19-22. Judson and Kaufman, pp. 109. Carbonate hard ground surfaces also show that a significant amount of time elapsed before the next layer was deposited. For example, sediments with whole marine fossils (shells) may have the upper surface scoured off such that the fossils on the surface are smoothly ground away. Such a smooth grinding indicates the layer had already hardened. This upper surface may also be found to have encrusting Bryozoan colonies on the upper surface. These only attach to hard surfaces. The surface may have been bored by sponges and other types of marine animals which do so by dissolving hardened rock with acid secretions. Wonderly, 87, p24-27.There are many erosion surfaces found on the upper surfaces at sediment boundaries. An example is the
upper surface of the Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon. It is riddled with caves, caverns and sinkholes to form a type of topography called limestone karst. It is common today in parts of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and northern Alabama. There is also an extensive erosion surface on the top of the Devonian layer that underlies the Redwall layer. There is also another erosion surface midway up in the Redwall formation. It is evident that the upper surface erosion had been proceeding for several thousand years before further deposition took place to form the overlying Supai Formation. The caves, etc., are eroded by the slow chemical etching of carbonic acid which forms caves such as Kentucky’s Mammoth Cave. This sequence of processes could not occur during a year long flood.The Redwall limestone itself tells a great deal about the timescale of its deposition. It is a 500-700 feet
thickness of unusually pure limestone and dolomite. It is repleat with marine fossils and lime-secreting algal mats embedded in the rock in the normal right way up position as they would have grown. These features require long times to develop. Just the hardening of 700 feet of limestone would require 1.6 million years! Wonderly points out that a flood could not do it for several reasons. 1) supersaturated ocean water cannot contain so much calcium carbonate, 2) the fossils obviously were not precipitated, 3) a flood would not provide the long term still water conditions necessary for so much calcium carbonate to settle out, 4) the sediments could not have been washed into place and remained free of contamination, 5) algal mats could not grow or survive intact in flood conditions, 6) the dumping of a half mile of further sediments on top of the Redwall sediments all at once would have crushed and obliterated all of these features. Wonderly goes on to document many similar deposition and erosion layers in Appalachian layers as well. Wonderly, 1987, pp. 27-36. The Redwall limestone is only one of several sediment layers exposed in the Grand Canyon. Metamorphic rock (schist) is found at the bottom of the canyon at what is called the Great Unconformity and igneous extrusions (granite) are also visible crosscutting through the layers from below. All together some 5,000 feet of sediments are exposed. This is a typical continental sediment thickness. These could not have been all deposited together during one flood event for several reasons. The layers have sharp boundaries between them. A flood scrambles up all the suspended materials, rather than sorting them into distinct sharp layers. The layers are not all marine in origin. For example, well above the Redwall is the Coconino sandstone. This is a layer of cross-bedded desert sand dunes. It comes complete with lizard tracks on the dune surfaces. This layer is between two marine layers: the Toroweap limestone above and the Hermit shale below. A single flood or any one rapid event cannot do this. It takes a great deal of time to achieve such large scale environmental changes leading to these radically different sedimentary deposits. Strahler, 1987, pp. 217-218. The thickness of sedimentary deposits is a testament to long-term deposition at a slow average rate. In the Appalachians, for example, there are thousands of feet of sediment rock: mostly limestone alternating with quartz sandstone, siltstones and shales. These layers are well preserved and not amalgamated as would be expected from a turbulent flood environment.A quick summary ;The canyon contains marine & terrestrial sandstones.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.Some of these upper surfaces exhibit polygonal mud cracks, showing clearly that surface-drying occurred. This does not occur under water.It is evident that the upper surface erosion had been proceeding for several thousand years before further deposition took place to form the overlying Supai Formation.Just the hardening of 700 feet of limestone would require 1.6 million years!Coconino sandstone. This is a layer of cross-bedded desert sand dunes. It comes complete with lizard tracks on the dune surfaces.These are some reasons why the Grand Canyon did not formed in a flood scenario.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2002]

I'm glad Im getting these long responses, it makes me think, and I hope I'm making the rest of you use that mind that you may or not think was divinely created or is of evolutionary regard. Its taking a bit of time to respond to all the responses because, well I'm back to class . Things might to a tad slower but Im not leaving the debate for a little bit (I'll probley start taking breaks in periods of weeks of time soon for book reading I have some books that I plan to read on cosmology, geology, and vastigal structures). I'll get them posted soon and I can't wait to respond to many of the questions I've been reading. --------------

( Some Text Quoted From Bryan Prim at http://www.the-archon.com )First, Shall we start off with the supposed ark Noah built:Wood rotting. Left out in the open, the partly-built Ark would be exposed to the elements, such as rain, wind, lightning (a large structure is likely to get struck quite often, and wood burns), fungus, termites and ravenous beavers (well, maybe not beavers). Maybe he first built a huge hangar in which he could construct it safely? That would have almost as great an enterprise as the Ark itself! Unfortunately, the Bible does not enlighten us as to the whereabouts of Noah's Shed. I guess it was washed away in the Flood...Theft and vandalism. The hordes of fiendish deviants living around Noah at the time would no doubt have had enjoyed enormous sinful fun by sabotaging the Ark, stealing the wood for themselves (why cut and prepare your own wood when Noah's done the job for you?) and harassing the few workers.Sag. Modern shipyards build large ships from metal, as wooden ships beyond a certain size simply cannot support their own weight out of water. Either Noah had access to some amazing technology unknown to us, or the size of the Ark is somewhat exaggerated.Let us now examine the Idea of a Flood:
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.Over the top of Mt. Everest then? The volume of water would have been astronomical. Millions of cubic miles. Where did it come from? Where did it go? The polar ice-caps are not big enough. The atmosphere does not contain millions of cubic miles of water.Using a bit of armchair maths, we can roughly calculate how much water would have been needed to cover the planet to the top of Mt. Everest:The radius of the Earth is approx. 6370kmThe height of Everest above sea-level is approx. 8.8 kmTherefore, the volume of the Earth is approx. 1,082,696,932,000km, or 1,080 billion cubic kilometers.The volume of the earth to the height of Everest is 1,087,190,293,000kmSubtracting the first volume from the second gives approx. 4,493,361,000, or four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometers of water!Also, this rain is supposed to have fallen within about 40 days. That means that there would have been about 220 meters of rainfall every day over the entire planet (8800/40 = 220)! A few centimeters in a day is considered to be extremely heavy rain.With the Rising of the ocean level, the air pressure would have increased to a level that would turn ordinary gasses like Nitrogen and Oxygen into deadly poisons. When rain falls it also causes heat, when it evaporates, it takes some of that heat away ( That's why it is cooler after it rains ) With all the rain falling, the earth's temperature woudl have risen to nearly 6000 degrees. Good luck trying to survive that!Let us now examine the animals:
Next, I have to ask how all the creatures managed to get back to their original habitats, or at least ones that would support them.How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?How did the polar bears and penguins get back the north/south poles?How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?How did the flightless dodos get back to Mauritius?How did the army ants get back to the Amazon rain-forests?As there were only two (or seven, depending) of each species, how did they manage to travel thousands of miles back to their place of origin without being eaten, dying in accidents or of starving to death due to lack of their normal (specialized) food supply?Of course, not all the animals were able to get away. According to Genesis 8:20 Noah immediately sacrificed at least one of each pair of clean animal! That could have potentially been a lot of animals. Seems a bit pointless, really. After all, God told him to build the Ark - it would appear to be rather unnecessary to thank God afterwards for looking after the Ark, and thanking God by slaughtering His creations and producing a huge pile of bloody corpses seems a little odd... So, that's the "clean" breeding pairs ruined (or reduced considerably if there were seven). Unless of course they were breeding/pregnant during the voyage. But then, how did the Ark cope with all the extra mouths to feed?Well then, What about the Dinosaurs?:
This is an area that causes problems for Flood-theorists. They usually state that the dinosaur bones we find today are the remains of the dinosaurs that died during the Flood.But why didn't Noah take any of these dinosaurs on the Ark? The Bible says he took two of EVERY LAND ANIMAL (and if dinosaurs were "clean", seven of each). Dinosaurs surely fit into this category, do they not?Also, if the fossil record was indeed created during the flood, then why do we consistently find that the lower down you go, the smaller the fossils become?If you take a large tank of water, and empty a big bucket of assorted stones (ranging in size from silt and sand up to large rocks) into it, you will notice that the BIG ONES SINK FIRST, with the fine silt and sand settling on top. If the fossil record was created during the flood, surely we should see large bones in the lower strata, and the smallest ones higher up.What we actually find is the exact opposite, which directly contradicts this part of the Flood hypothesis and supports the evolutionary view.If all the land animals died during the flood, we would expect the fossil record to be a hopelessly jumbled mess, with human bones being mixed up with dinosaur bones and Trilobites. What we actually find is a neatly layered set of strata that appear to be in chronological order, showing the evolutionary development from early, simple creatures up to modern, complex creatures. Also, creatures of approximately similar size, shape and weight should (according to the Creation theory) sink at about the same rate. Why aren't dog skeletons mixed in with Compsognathus? Why aren't elephants mixed in with Stegosaurus? Why isn't pollen mixed all the way through, instead of starting at the strata containing flowers? Could it be that they were not all alive at the same time?If anyone can explain how this could have happened, I'd be intrigued to find out.Maybe the small animals all drowned and sank first, while the larger creatures were able to float about a bit before sinking? Can you imagine that?!? Noah looks over the side of the Ark to see ants, dogs, cows, T. Rex, Moas etc. all treading water, and disappearing in order of size...ConclusionThis seems an incredibly complex way to go about ridding the world of sinners, doesn't it? Not only that, it doesn't seem to have actually worked. If God intended to re-breed the human race from the pure and virtuous Noah, why do we see so much "sin" in the world today? Surely God would have foreseen the outcome? I suppose it could be argued that the troubles in the world today are as nothing compared with that in Noah's time, but I don't think the people around Noah had problems with drugs, schoolchildren with assault rifles, and weapons of mass destruction (apart from God, of course). If the world today is at least as bad as Noah's world, why did God bother? Maybe he cannot see the future?God, who can create or destroy entire galaxies with no effort at all, has to get some poor slob to build an enormous ship, transport millions of animals from all over the planet to this ship, flood the entire planet, drain the water and then redistribute the animals again. What is the point? Why not just click his fingers and cause everything to be as he wishes it to be? Why go to the trouble of causing the terrible deaths by drowning of billions of animals, birds, insects and humans? This includes, of course, all those innocent babies and children who haven't had time to even start sinning yet.Drowning babies... Quite odd behavior for an all-powerful, infinitely compassionate God, is it not? Heck, I suppose God knew they were going to grow up into sinners and decided to get rid of them early. Of course, as they hadn't actually sinned yet, they couldn't go to Hell, so I suppose they must have gone to Heaven. But in that case, why did they deserve to have the life choked out of them by violent, muddy flood-waters? God does work in a mysterious way! (See my Flood Story for one possible scenario)I cannot imagine how anyone could give any credibility whatsoever to the story of Noah's Ark, it really does defy belief.But then, of course, God can do anything, we should not attempt to understand him, and what he does do, he does in ways beyond our comprehension.I don't think he could have come up with anything more mysteriously incomprehensible than the bizarre Ark story.That is the problem, really. In order to accept Noah's Ark as fact, you must believe in God first. Without belief in God, it is just laughable. You're not going to convince many people to follow your religion by sitting them down and saying "Well, let me tell you this fascinating and factual story about a man, some animals and a big boat a few thousand years ago.". With total, unquestioning belief in God, it works, no matter how strange it seems, as you can just tell yourself "God sorted it out". To me, though, that just seems to be a huge cop-out.-Special Thanks to Bryan Prim for the use of his fantastic articles!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
If I may:
mark24, Mount Everest did not exist as such in world before the Flood in the Flood scenario. Therefor covering it with water was not a problem. How did Mt. Everest form in the Flood scenario? Land masses colliding at about 45 mph, perhaps.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Land masses moving at 45 mph?? Are you insane?John Paul:
No. Dr. Brown has a model showing how it happened.schraf:
The Earth would be destroyed from the heat produced from the friction alone.John Paul:
Guess what? The Earth was destroyed. That was the point.schraf:
When two tectonic plates touch each other a tiny bit, entire cities can be, and often are, destroyed.John Paul:
Tectonic plates do touch each other. It is when they shift that earthquakes occur.schraf:
The idea of entire contiments flying around at 45 mph, as you suggest they did, is completely ridiculous.John Paul:
Thanks for your baseless assertion.schraf:
You are firmly entrenched in trying to cram reality into your tiny little version of how events "had" to have happened. You are starting to look silly.John Paul:
And your materialistic naturalism skirt is showing.schraf:
You are pulling this stuff out of somewhere but it sure isn't any kind of geology or physics text.John Paul:
It's called Scripture and scientists that perform research under its framework.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or do you think that the slow process we observe today could cause the sharp peaks we now observe in high mountain ranges?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Why are they "too sharp" for you?John Paul:
No. Can you show that the slow process we observe today can account for such peaks? If not just say so.schraf:
We can measure the motion of the Indian subcontinent, for example. We see the evidence of its slow migration.John Paul:
And what does the rate NOW have anything to do with the rate in the past? My car is parked now. Applying your logic it never moved. LOL!
Do you have any evidence that physical law was suspended 4,500 years ago or whenever the flood was supposed to have happened?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did the water go? Back into the oceans where the basins had dropped, filling in the area vacated by the out-pouring of the fountains of the deep.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Is there any physical evidence that these "fountains of the deep" ever existed??John Paul:
I don't know. All we have so far is the Lord's Word on it.------------------
John Paul