I fear this post is too long and will not be read. But it is as long as it is in response to your post. If you'd prefer shorter posts, fine. What I don't want is to be ignored because of the length. Please choose what it most interesting to you and let's focus on that if you like.
OK, sounds good to me. I will not read some posts, long or short, for various reasons, sometimes because I can't take any more of this abusive attitude here, sometimes because I don't want to focus on that subject, there's too much going on as it is and so on. But I answered your post and would expect to continue the discussion.
What I was looking for was a video illustrating the formation of the geologic column. Haven't found one yet but I keep finding other gems that are worth watching that cover other areas of geology and evolution.
I might be interested in seeing those too. Certainly anything you find on the formation of the geological column. I've had trouble finding basic information about various "time periods" when I've looked, such simple facts as where certain fossils have been found, how they know what era they belong to from a mere rock formation, how many of some kinds of fossils are found, and just basic stuff like that -- information I know from experience I'm not going to find in any textbook on the subject either. It adds to a creationist's suspiciousness about these things that such information isn't readily available. All one finds is the blanket statements, the interpretations, this period and that period and flat statements about millions of years as if it were established fact and what supposedly "happened" then, pure imaginative reconstructions palmed off as fact. To my mind this is bogus science.
I went for a double degree from uc berkeley half of which was nuclear simply in order to debunk old earth ideas. How's that for a convinced YEC? I was sure I could see the mistakes that others missed by looking at the data from a new perspective. I went through every possible idea imaginable but each had some problem/contradiction with some other fact. I did my own personal "rate study." Which is fine. That's how we learn.
I'm impressed. But despite all that I wonder how much of a grasp you had of actual YEC arguments themselves. I read a lot of books on the subject but I wouldn't claim to have a grasp on more than a few topics myself.
So at the bottom of the *flood produced* geologic column is the original pristine surface of the earth as it was prior to the flood event? The one that was very much more verdant and tropical than the modern biosphere?
Oh no, that's not the idea at all. There's no "bottom" involved, ALL of the geologic column from bottom to top is the evidence of that pre-Flood world, the deposition of all those different sediments in neat horizontal layers, which I think defies any sort of long term explanation but is very compatible with what is known about the behavior of water, then all those fossils of so many forms of life, familiar and unfamiliar, fossils requiring special circumstances to form too but such an abundance of them; and all the fossilized vegetation, some of which has become coal. I think the generally wrecked look of the entire planet is also evidence of the Flood, which is maybe more evident in the desert areas, greenery doing such a nice job of masking it, but I personally think the Earth LOOKS like a wreck, like a great catastrophe must have overwhelmed it. That's what I mean by the evidence being all around us, everywhere we look, but I do think the strata are particularly special evidence of it.
My own guess would be, since of course you'd want to know, that all the alluvial fans in the entire world and all the eroded material at the base of all the formations in the entire world, certainly all the Grand Canyon walls and all the formations in the Grand Canyon area, would easily have been accomplished in a few thousand years.
Take the width of the canyon, 18 miles times 5,280ft, divide by 4,000 years and we have 23.76ft per year. Do we see that rate of erosion anywhere?
Are you talking about the erosion of ALL the material that was once in the canyon? Because I'm not. But maybe we can talk about that eventually. But right now I'm talking only about the erosion we see at the base of the walls and the various formations of the Southwest, the hoodoos, the "monuments" and so on, and in the fans at the bottom of the canyons of mountain ranges and that sort of thing. To my mind that accumulation that is quite visible certainly needed no more than a few thousand years.
For reference read up on the Bryce Canyon hoodoos at the National Parks website. They're worried that it won't be long before the hoodoos have disappeared completely due to the rapid erosion that formed them and now threatens their existence: 2-4 feet eroded away in a hundred years they estimate. That rate would be 20 to 40 feet in a thousand years, 80 to 160 feet in four thousand years, then add a few hundred years which takes us back to the Flood and certainly to the time of the laying down of the strata from which the hoodoos were carved. That adds up to far more than the actual erosion we see today; it ought to be enough to wipe out the hoodoos or at least reduce them to little nubbins. And yet on that website they claim that formation, the Claron Formation, was laid down some 40 million years ago. There seems to be a small discrepancy in the numbers here.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. If you are talking about the Claron formation before the hoodoos were sculpted I've taken into account all the stages in my opinion above. Not sure what you mean by "the fin" but the "window" is one of the stages of the formation illustrated at that site. It's all what YEARLY erosion has done to the original layer, and it's that erosion that caused all the stages up to the current appearance of the strange goblin shapes; that's what I'm talking about. No need for any of that to have taken more than a few thousand years.
Well, that's a decent stab at rationalizing the erosion, the freezing and thawing scenario I mean, but is there evidence of all that erosion somewhere? They say it was carried to the ocean. Funny how they have a problem with where the Flood would have deposited the erosion out of the GC without bothering about where their own scenarios put it all, first the erosion of a whole six mile high mountain chain and then the canyon itself.
From this I see that you didn't read my previous post in answer to this very question. Percy has repeated the answer for you. The problem remains for floodists as there is no deposition from a catastrophic flood scenario.
I'm not sure about that, but again the SAME problem exists for any theory about the sculpting of the canyon: its contents had to go somewhere whether the Flood moved them or the river moved them. I doubt it's really as big a puzzle as it sometimes seems. I may not have read your post on that subject I don't know, frankly I stopped caring about this thread a LONG time ago and only get involved in a few things that interest me from time to time. Perhaps you could repeat your post if you want me to consider it.
I still don't think erosion would ever make a mountain chain into a flat plain, but they do so that takes care of that doesn't it?
quote:
Slowly, the forces of nature are wearing the mountains down from the summits, and filling in the lakes from their stream entrances outwards. This implies a natural preference for flat terrain. If everything stayed consistent for all time, the world would be a rather flat and uninteresting place. However, thanks to constantly changing climates and large scale geological movements, like mountain building, we are treated to unending diversity. As nature slowly sculpts the landscape and works to flatten it, occasionally rapid (geologically), large scale disruptions, like the uplifting of mountains, force it to begin anew.
What a ROMANTIC piece of nonsense, even "religious" in tone I must say. Personally I think it's remarkable that the planet is as accommodating to human interests as it is, as beautiful as it is, in spite of its basically wrecked condition. Anyway, I think the idea that mountains would erode to flatness is absurd. "A natural preference for flat terrain" is very much romantic nonsense. See, this is what comes of a science that operates entirely on imagination because there is no way to test or check it. In my experience erosion forms gashes and gullies, not flat terrain, water cuts into land etc, and what happened to all that tectonic activity on this "very active" planet, which the video itself started out invoking? Just sort of suspended operations while the mountains collapsed, eh? Over what is it, 500 million years or something like that?
Sure, as stated above. Even the gullies I posted pictures of way back there are examples.
By the way I only glance at such links if that, unless there is some compelling reason to spend time on them. At a glance that website appears to present the usual imaginative romantic nonsense about the mountains.
See I think the pressure of the strata above the Great Unconformity, which were laid down to a depth of over two miles, maybe even closer to three, resisting the tectonic and volcanic forces that tilted the Supergroup, was most likely sufficient to form the garnets. That's a scenario that would have occurred in the Flood.
Well with a hypothetical flood you can generate whatever pressure you like, just by making the flood deeper.
Now, THAT is really a misrepresentation of my argument, you have obviously failed to grasp a thing I've said. I'm sorry I don't know if that is my fault or yours but I've got a very clear idea of what I'm trying to say and I've said it many ways on this thread and it's very discouraging that just about nobody seems to get it. I'm working from the evidence of the actual strata that were laid down above the Supergroup, the strata you can see in the canyon along with a mile or more above that which can be seen in the Grand Staircase but was also originally deposited over the GC area, which can also be seen in the cross sections. ALL the strata from the Tapeats to the top of the Grand Staircase were once above the Supergroup. THAT's the pressure I'm talking about, that's an actual existing reality that entire column of strata. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with how deep the Flood was. I assume it was originally over the top of the uppermost layer, but I am also not counting the water itself as the weight, only the deposited sediments.
Is there any evidence of this uniform pressure acting over vast distances? If not then that is another evidence against a global flood.
Nonsense. I'm not talking about the water. I don't think you grasp the most elementary thing I've been saying here.
But the strata that are visible in the Grand Canyon do extend in all directions, into Utah and some into California and Nevada and New Mexico, and some entirely across the whole continent; that's a fairly vast distance.
Many single bits of evidence can be explained in various ways but it all has to tie together into one single model. The flood model doesn't hold water when all the evidence is considered together.
It DOES tie together in a single model, that you fail to grasp.
It is the reason you keep shelving points you are incapable of responding to. You imagine when you learn and understand more that you will later be able to explain what you cannot at present explain. Spoiler alert: If you continue to learn you will reach the same conclusions as everyone else.
I'm SO sorry but I'm ignoring all those other points because they all take a lot of research and in the context of my main interest they are red herrings. I want first to get my main argument across, but obviously I'm not succeeding at that. Yes, once that was grasped all the rest WOULD have to be rethought.
Since you have grasped ZERO of what I've been arguing here, I don't see why I should follow your posts from here on.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)