Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

I don't know how you get the idea that meanders are confined to the Eastern end of the canyon. Or how you get the idea that "receding Flood waters" would produce meanders - a feature of a mature river.Your previous position as I remember it admitted that the meandering sections were carved by the river, which so,bed that problem but raised a lot more - leading to the incoherence.

quote:

---

The deeply incised meanders we usually see are at the eastern end of the canyon where the river is starting

---

There seem to be meanders in the west, too.

quote:

---

It isn't the receding Flood waters that produced the meanders, the point is that it would have been after the Flood waters had receded enough to leave the flat plateau where streams would continue to run for a while, and meanders form on flat plateaus.

---

In other words the river DID carve the Canyon ? After the meanders had formed ?

quote:

---

I really don't know what the problem is. The river cut the meanders but the meanders are nowhere near the size of the wide parts of the Grand Canyon which it couldn't have cut

---

That is odd, i can't see that the meandering sections are much narrower and surely the width is as more to do with erosion by rain and wind and ice than with the river - although the river cut exposed the sides to those forces. The river, however, is responsible for the depth and the course of the Canyon which in my mind is sufficient to say that the river cut the Canyon.

quote:

---

Seems to me the river formed after the receding Flood had carved out the wide parts of the canyon farther down river.

---

Where do you put the divide ? Because it doesn't look viable to me.

quote:

---

The fact that the tilted section is right up against the fault line certainly suggests a simultaneous event.

---

Why ? Where else would it be ?The fact that the Claron formation sits flat on top of the tilted strata is very strong evidence to the contrary.

quote:

---

And how would separate tectonic events select some but not other phenomena to affect anyway?

---

I don't know what you are talking about. Are you perhaps asking how different events do different things ? Or are you wondering how events can fail to affect things that do not yet exist ?

quote:

---

Seems to me I've given sufficient evidence.

---

None is not sufficient.

quote:

---

Not clear if you are talking about the GS event or the Great Unconformity

---

I was talking about angular unconformities in general at that point.

quote:

---

The raising of the land I was talking about was over the Great Unconformity under the Grand Canyon

---

That is what I was talking about as should be obvious. How can accurately describing it lead you to think I was talking about somewhere else ?

quote:

---

Since all the strata follow that contour and the canyon itself is cut into it, that appears to be evidence that the strata were there before the raising of the land: the whole stack was raised.

---

And as I said that was done by the faulting. The tilting of the Supergroup is obviously a separate event.

quote:

---

Which fault? Why would the fault at the far north affect the Supergroup just because they happened at the same time?

---

Obviously the fault that split the Supergroup strata. What other fault could I mean ?

quote:

---

In contrast, reptiles are supposed to have evolved into mammals in a jump between time periods. We see a reptile in one and a mammal in the next and the evolution is assumed.

---

Faith, making things up is not wise. Especially when the subject has been discussed here. We have a very good fossil record for the transition as you would know if you followed the discussions here (the subject has come up more than once)

quote:

---

But nothing like that degree of change occurred in the trilobites or coelacanths, the creatures that span the greatest number of time periods

---

Obviously you are in no position to make such a judgement.

quote:

---

I recall the discussion of the reptilian to mammalian ear, for which there is only one example of each showing enormously different structures for which many steps of transition have to be imagined. Two creatures that far apart with no transitional form in the fossil record, one supposedly evolved from the other for which there is absolutely no evidence, just the assumption

---

In other words you have no idea of what you are talking about. You don't even know what the differences are.

quote:

---

Why not?

---

Because you have no real idea of what you are comparing.

quote:

---

Don't YECs get to define the Kind?

---

You don't HAVE a meaningful definition. If you mean "don't YECs get to arbitrarily set Kind boundaries" - which is what you seem to mean the answer is "not if you want anyone to treat it as a serious argument". Because it isn't

quote:

---

Not exactly without reviewing the information, but I know it involves difference of position of main elements of the inner ear, and of relative size and the absence of a chamber or other structure. Big differences that the ToE expects to have been incrementally bridged over millions of years.

---

In other words you haven't bothered to find out how big the changes are or how many intermediates are known. You just assume that there aren't any and try to pass it off as a fact. And you hypocritically accuse scientists of relying on assumption - based only on YOUR assumption.

quote:

---

The definition of the Kind isn't really necessary to the point I'm making anyway about the small changes over hundreds of millions of years that can be seen in the trilobites and coelacanths, versus the enormjous changes assumed to have occurred between the reptilian and mammalian ear in a much shorter time

---

Nor is it relevant to my point that you can't make such a comparison without knowing the magnitude of the variations in each case - and on the evidence you probably don't know that in ANY of the cases.

quote:

---

However, I usually don't try to define the Kind except by the functional processes of evolution that can't exceed the boundaries of the genome because of loss of genetic diversity, which I've argued many times..

---

And you have failed to make that case every time.

quote:

---

Oh I followed the discussion of the ear evolution at the time. There are no known transitions

---

You saw a discussion of known transitional fossils and concluded that there were no known transitionals ? Obviously you can't even remember the basics.And doing a David Jay and boasting of imaginary victories hardly helps your case.

quote:

---

I think it quite possible without magic, but since you don't I'll just go back to the main evidence for the Flood and against the Time Scale which is the rapidly deposited strata with their abundance of fossils

---

The existence of some rapidly deposited strata is hardly evidence against the scientific view. The existence of strata that were NOT rapidly deposited is far better evidence against Flood Geology. The abundance of fossils is also evidence against Flood geology - there are too many, as has been discussed previously in this forum.

That is because Faith is making ad-hoc excuses without considering the implications - often without the understanding she'd need to be able to properly consider the implications. And this is how she has to treat - what she calls - evidence for the Flood.It's not science, it's just bad apologetics.

quote:

---

All your stuff is open to interpretation because there is no way to know for sure if the past was the same as the present...

---

If you are reduced to discounting all the physical evidence - without any cause but the fact that it disproves your claims you can hardly be said to have proof.

quote:

---

..but the cross sections and the map are straightforward evidence that the Time Scale is a fiction.

---

Obviously if you are prepared to assume that different physical laws apply to the extent you would need to save a young earth you can hardly make that claim.But it isn't true anyway. The map hardly supports your case - and I would argue that it undermines your interpretation of the diagram by showing that the actual situation is rather more complicated than the diagram suggests.

If you can't see that throwing out practically all the evidence in favour of a dubious interpretations of few cherry-picked examples is pretty much proof that you are wrong, what would do it ?

quote:

---

The cross section(s) and the map along with tons of other eivdences of the same sort ARE evidence that shows the Time Scale couldn't possibly be true.

---

Not really, and you would see that if you seriously thought about the issue. If you just look at the map you can see the boundaries aren't simply the result of tilting strata (remember that the map only shows the rocks nearest the surface, not what is underneath them). And that's just one issue.

quote:

---

just think for a change, you'd have to recognize that layers of sediment cannot possibly represent time periods of millions of years.

---

Why couldn't it take millions of years for the original material to be deposited ?

quote:

---

and in fact nothing coujld possibly have lived when the layers were being deposited, just think for pete's sake,

---

We did. That's how we know that your assertion is a ridiculous falsehood. Maybe you should try thinking properly instead of just jumping to conclusions you like.

quote:

---

THEN AND ONLY THEN were they tilted and eroded and otherwise deformed. The cross section shows them tilted as a block. all of them from Precambrian to "present" time, and the map shows that they were all laid down and THEN eroded, -- eroded areas expose layers beneath.

---

Except for the cross-sections that show otherwise. Cherry-picking at its most obvious.

quote:

---

Really, all it takes is some honesty and clear thought.

---

If you tried that you would see that you are wrong, just as everyone else does.

quote:

---

Concerning Siccar Point, there is no evidence to support the standard interpretation either, as is the case with so many things on your side -- as usual it is just assumed that the horizontal section was laid down later.

---

The fact that Lyell had a workable explanation of how the angular unconformity formed while you do not means that it counts as evidence against you. Moreover, as we have discussed in the past there is evidence that the lower surface was eroded before the flat strata were deposited.

quote:

---

The cross section ought to be sufficient to show that the strata were all laid down before deformation, whatever you think of Siccar Point. And that order of things means the standard understanding of when Pangaea broke up is wrong.

---

Should it ? You will really have to explain why, especially in the light of the map.

quote:

---

In any case the cross section I've posted so many times of the Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area shows the same order of events, strata all in place followed by massive tectonic disturbance, raised land, volcanism, erosion

---

it certainly does not. In fact it clearly shows that the Supergroup was tilted and eroded before the strata above it were deposited.

quote:

---

The map adds to the picture by showing how the layers have been eroded away exposing the layer beneath in the usual Geo Time Scale order. Whole island composed of strata. It would be nice to see a three dimensional model of it, I bet one exists somewhere.

---

I wonder what you think the "usual Geo Time Scale Order" is, and how you can identify it from the map.

quote:

---

Perhaps Geology has taken note and has an explanation for the interesting Southwest-to-Northeast pattern of erosion indicated on the map?

---

I could make a couple of guesses. Looking at the topography might be enlightening.

quote:

---

Is that the direction the tilted strata follow perhaps, that are shown on the cross section?

---

It is rather doubtful that the cross section shows tilted strata just from the scale of it. The Grand Canyon is only a mile deep. Imagine how much wider the strata would have to be to cover the distance form the West of Wales to the East of England. And the map certainly rules it out, with - to point out just one obvious example - the "Crag and Eocene" rocks extending from Essex on the East coast, West into Dorset - south of the Severn Valley.

quote:

---

Otherwise it suggests the direction of the receding Flood water across the island, which I've been figuring occurred simultaneously with the whole tectonic upheaval.

---

Not really. Aside from the fact that we know that there were multiple tectonic upheavals spread over time you really need to take the erosion into account.

I think that what Faith means is that she goes with evidence that "supports" her case because she refuses to dispute it (no matter how bad it is) and rejects evidence that contradicts it - because she disputes it (no matter how good it is).Which only demonstrates ridiculous bias.(And Faith, if you want to disagree, come up with evidence for the Flood that is actually indisputable - because you haven't yet)

quote:

---

The evidence I have given via cross sections and maps (see Message 355 for instance, and Message 359) shows that the strata were laid down continuously and then tectonically deformed after they were all in place...

---

In other words you are putting your interpretation of the diagrams forward as "proof".But even your favoured Grand Staircase diagram shows that you are wrong.I have pointed out problems with your interpretation of the cross-section shown in Message 355 e.g. (Note that the "Vale of Severn" is marked on the diagram.)And you haven't even made a coherent case that the map in Message 359 supports the idea at all.Never mind the fact that the diagram is really early and very low resolution and bound to miss all sorts of details. William Smith's achievements were great but hardly great enough to put your personal interpretation of it ahead of all the work done since his time.

quote:

---

...and there is no sign whatever of anything between the layers to suggest any time periods ever existed.

---

Except for tracks, rooted trees, mature sea-life communities, river beds....

quote:

---

Plus the fact that nothing could live where a thick layer of sediments is all there was for a landscape.

---

Perhaps you should visit a river delta sometime instead of assuming that they are all barren wastelands.

quote:

---

It's been proved. You'll deny it and deny it but it's been proved.

---

Obviously it has not been proved. Perhaps you should offer actual proof rather than pretending that evidence doesn't exist or jumping to conclusions without any consideration of the possible problems. Even the latter is nowhere near proof. And it is the best you have.Edited by PaulK, : Minor clarification

quote:

---

Faith's interpretation of the Bible is inerrant

---

Even when it contradicts the Bible. But that's standard for so-called Biblical Inerrantists.