Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 961 of 1896 (715462)
01-05-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by Faith
01-05-2014 3:22 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Hi Faith,
No significance can be attached to the fact that you find something absurd. What *is* significant is your clearly demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding combined with an inability to explain any evidence in terms of real instead of made-up physical processes, despite being provided a great deal of information over the nearly 1000 messages of this thread. If I were to respond to your message with correct information I would just be repeating information that you've already ignored many times, so there's no point in repeating the information again.
I wasn't part of any previous discussion about hoodoos, but since I assume you've already been provided the correct information many times I'll just briefly say that they're a product of erosion, not "tectonic movement, earthquakes, volcanism, etc etc etc." You won't find hoodoos buried in geological layers because they form in areas of net erosion, not deposition.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 3:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 962 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 6:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 962 of 1896 (715465)
01-05-2014 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 961 by Percy
01-05-2014 6:14 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
The only "information" that was given concerning this situation was Dr. A's misapplied photos. There was nothing else. Oh the usual speculative stuff of course. Everybody else kept changing the subject. As you are doing right now. So far nobody has even GRASPED the point I'm making, let alone answered it.
Oh right, I forgot to mention the erosion which shaped the hoodoos. THAT didn't start until after all the strata were in place either. They ARE formed from strata though, Percy, you know, DEPOSITED SEDIMENTS. And THEN they were shaped by erosion. The implications of which ought to be obvious if you were inclined at all to understanding the truth about these things.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 6:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 965 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 7:32 PM Faith has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 963 of 1896 (715467)
01-05-2014 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by Faith
01-05-2014 3:22 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
...about which I've commented that they demonstrate the principle I keep harping on, that first you get the layers upon layers upon layers, with NO cutting or other disturbance, until "recent time" when finally, suddenly, the planet undergoes tectonic movement, earthquakes, volcanism, etc etc etc, and you get the canyons and the other interesting shapes carved out of and into the strata.
Basic to your groundless assumptions is the magical one that all geological processes were somehow magically suspended while those layers upon layers were laid down. Please explain how that could have happened, that only certain continuous natural processes would have arbitrarily been suspended for extended periods of time. And even more importantly, why do you insist that such a thing had happened? Your assumptions truly make no sense whatsoever.
You may remember hearing mention of ex-YEC Glenn R. Morton, a working geologist with field experience in oil exploration. Both he and his fellow ICR-trained YEC geologists whom he had hired on in that work were completely unprepared to face on a daily basis the rock-hard geological facts that the ICR (and all of YEC "geology") had taught him did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. They all suffered crises of faith and Morton himself was driving solely by young-earth creationism's theology to the verge of atheism over a ten-year period ... until at the last moment he was able to arrive at a scientifically accurate harmonization, albeit one which most creationists would reject out-of-hand, I'm sure.
What had really caused problems for Morton was when he started working with seismic data. Using sonar technology, we can see what lies beneath the surface of the earth. In 1998, he wrote the web page, Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look, one section of which, Buried River Channel, discusses some of that seismic data. Morton has taken his pages down; as I understand the situation, he felt that atheists were using them to attack religion. Unfortunate as that is, others have reposted some of his pages. Here is one such reposting of Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look: http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/...ts.+A+Second+Look At the top, please note the links to the "controversy" regarding Morton's pages.
About a third of the way down the page, you will find the section, Buried River Channel:
quote:
Buried River Channel
Three dimensional seismic data has been utilized in the past few years in the search for oil. When displayed along a reflector, interesting geologic features are found buried deeply in the earth. Below is a river channel which is buried at a depth of 1670 feet deep under the Texas prairie in Baylor Co. Texas. If all the geologic strata were deposited in a global flood , then this can not be a preflood river channel since there are about 5,000 feet of other flood sediments underneath this river. The white is a limestone in which the river eroded its channel (dark). Oil wells drilled outside of the channel find limestone at this level, but wells drilled into the channel fail to find any limestone here but instead find the sands and shales deposited by the river. The erosion of the limestone requires a lot more time than the young earthers will allow. ( The original can be seen in AAPG Explorer, June 1993, p. 14)
Here is my attempt to display that image here:
OK, you'll have to go to that page to see it; I'm certain that you, being dedicated to ignorance, will not, but others will.
A meandering river channel eroded into limestone. We all know that cutting a meandering river channel takes a lot of time and slow-flowing water; we learned about those processes in high school or early in college, just to show how basic that knowledge is. But even if you want to try to challenge how long it takes to cut a meandering river channel, this does still reveal your basic assumption of no erosion until all the layers had been laid down to be completely wrong. And this one meandering river channel eroded into limestone is only one of many all over the world, though admittedly others may well have eroded into rock other than limestone.
Faith, yet again, please please please learn something about geology! Yes, I do understand that due to health and mobility issues you are not able to go trudging out into the field yourself to look at the geology yourself first-hand. For the questions you sent me I honestly and sincerely realized that you should talk with an actual geologist for answers, but your response was to start screaming at me hysterically. And the more I repeated my advice the worse your hysteria became.
But my advice is still sound. You are pretty much restricted to using the Internet for your research. Stop listening to the creationists; they will only lie to you. Ask geologists. Or perhaps more aptly, study geology. I remember more than a few creationists over these past three decades absolutely refusing to learn what evolution really teaches, because they believed that in order to do so they would have to start out by "believing in" evolution. Bullshit! They were falsely applying the goals of religious "education" to science education. The goals of religious "education" is to indoctrinate the student, to tell the student what he must believe. The goal of science education is that the students understand the concepts, and explicitly not to dictate belief in those ideas -- refer to various science education standards that have been published, such as California's (my link appears to now be broken) and its Anti-Dogmatism Statement reprinted by the NCSE at http://ncse.com/...a/voices/california-state-board-education. For another real-life example of indoctrination vs. learning-about, please consider that while on active duty, the USAF taught me Marxism. Would you really think that the US Air Force wanted to turn me into a Marxist? Or rather, wouldn't the goal have been one of learning about my enemy? As was taught by General Sun Tzu so many centuries ago (Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy)):
quote:
31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
Faith, you do not know your enemy (science). And far worse, you do not know yourself. You are ignorant of both your enemy and of yourself.
Faith, from the very beginning (I first started studying "creation science" in 1981 and discussing it on-line circa 1987) I have always held the position that I do not care whether you or any other creationist are opposed to evolution. Go right ahead and oppose evolution all you want to. All that I insist upon is that you do so honestly and truthfully! Except for extremely rare occasions, I have always been disappointed. And in most of those rare exceptions, those rare honest creationists ended up switching sides. Like scienceishonesty, whose return had triggered your latest spurt of participation here.
Most of "creation science" consists of attacks against strawman arguments, against gross misunderstanding of evolution and of all the other sciences. Creationists fight mightily, but it's always shadow-boxing and never against the actual opponent. If a creationist really and truly wants to fight against evolution and an Old Earth, then he has to stop shadow-boxing and actually face the opponent that he has named.
This means that creationists who truly want to take up the fight have a very strong vested interest in learning everything they can about evolution! So that they can address the actually weaknesses and problems with the theories instead of mere strawmen. And YECs concentrating on old-earth vs young-earth need to learn everything they can about the sciences involved in old-earth views, including geology and physics.
So then, Faith. Are you just going to continue to put on a transparent show and thoroughly discredit Christianity? Or are you actually going to take on your named opponent and try to do some actual good?
Edited by Admin, : Fix image.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 3:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 964 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:32 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 998 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 4:55 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 964 of 1896 (715471)
01-05-2014 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 963 by dwise1
01-05-2014 6:50 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Ad hominems galore, accusations of perfidies galore, changes of subject. Well, what else could I expect?
Really, what I said is good enough to repeat:
I would like to reiterate my most simple observation of them all:
The idea that a rock, in fact a gigantic rock pancake of sorts
... the idea, I say, that a gigantic rock pancake, that may stretch for hundreds or even thousands of miles across a continent, somehow represents a particular time period in Earth's history, IS ABSURD. It assumes the idea that a specific kind of sediment, and ONLY that sediment, collected over such a huge distance by normal means we observe today, and that a peculiar assemblage of living creatures managed to die normal deaths over normal spans of time and get fossilized therein. And that this process repeated itself from time to time with a DIFFERENT sediment each time, for hundreds of millions of years, rock pancakes stacking up to miles in height /depth, so that we now have a record in these rock pancakes of former periods of time on the planet, with very specific flora and fauna etc etc etc. And all this is supposed to have occurred by normal means of sediment deposition, by streams for instance, and seas that in defiance of all known means keep rising and falling to accomplish this feat. I mean, REALLY, you poor dear human patsies, REALLY!
I'm not allowed of course to call this an argument, I must have EVIDENCE. But there really isn't much more in the way of evidence except the fact of the rock pancakes, the rest is all interpretation. I would think the drear facts ought to be sufficient, really, but I was inspired to do this post by reading a little on the Claron Formation, which is the layer of the strata which exhibits those fascinating pink hoodoos.
...about which I've commented that they demonstrate the principle I keep harping on, that first you get the layers upon layers upon layers, with NO cutting or other disturbance, until "recent time" when finally, suddenly, the planet undergoes tectonic movement, earthquakes, volcanism, etc etc etc, and you get the canyons and the other interesting shapes carved out of and into the strata. The implications of this for Old Earth assumptions are HUGE but you all just keep rationalizing them away. Which is of course easy to do because as I keep saying there are no safeguards against rampant interpretive error when you are dealing with the UNWITNESSED / PREHISTORIC past.
The complex fictions that have been put together supposedly to explain the formation of the various strata, such as in that Wikipedia article, in my opinion should make you all weep for the misuse of the human mind.
The strata are not a record of evolving life, though they do tell us what once lived on the Earth before the Flood, but really, what the strata are is a record of a massive DEATH. There is DEATH and only DEATH in the walls of the Grand Canyon and the layers of the Grand Staircase and the hoodoos and everywhere else you find the strata and the fossils. Geology is all about a gigantic GRAVEYARD.
Y'all just need to learn to SEE the absurdity I'm talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 963 by dwise1, posted 01-05-2014 6:50 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 967 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 7:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 978 by dwise1, posted 01-05-2014 8:56 PM Faith has replied
 Message 981 by roxrkool, posted 01-05-2014 10:34 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 965 of 1896 (715472)
01-05-2014 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 962 by Faith
01-05-2014 6:31 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Hi Faith,
You're mistaken. We do understand the points you're making. The problem is that you're making things up in your own head that never happen in reality, such as floods that sort sediments into distinct layers, that sort life by order of change toward greater similarity to modern forms, that sort radiometric materials by order of isotopic concentration, and while somehow creating eroded landscapes between layers. And that's just some of the problems with your ideas.
Instead of addressing these basic and fundamental flaws in your scenario you just ignore them and repeat your position over and over again, all the while accusing those who carefully read your nonsense and respond with correct information of not grasping your incredibly naive points.
You can't convince other creationists, you can't convince those who accept the views of science, so that means the number of people you're able to convince is...zero. Anyone with an ounce of sanity would react to such a situation by conducting a careful examination of their own judgment and taking a second look at the foundations of their beliefs. Repeating the same crazy ideas over and over again *is* very convincing, but only about you, not your ideas.
When you finally begin addressing the severe and fatal problems with your ideas maybe we can have a constructive dialog. But as long as you're in "repeat the same thing over and over again with fingers firmly in ears"-mode then it's not worth saying any more than that you are far too ignorant of geology specifically and science generally for your idle Bible-myth based speculations to have any value.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 6:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 966 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:34 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 966 of 1896 (715473)
01-05-2014 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 965 by Percy
01-05-2014 7:32 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Funny how determined you are to change the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 7:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 968 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 7:43 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 967 of 1896 (715475)
01-05-2014 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 964 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:32 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
You're posting a cut-n-paste of your Message 958? Why did you do that? This is no way a response to what dwise1 explained. This doesn't help move the discussion constructively forward. in fact, it does the opposite, as if your goal isn't knowledge and understand but ignorance and obfuscation.
The point from dwise1 that I'd most like to see you address is the buried meandering river. Why don't you do some thinking about how that might happen in your flood scenario.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 969 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 968 of 1896 (715477)
01-05-2014 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 966 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:34 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Faith writes:
Funny how determined you are to change the subject.
But this is just you making things up again, which is what you've been doing throughout the thread. The correct information *has* been provided to you before, and you have ignored it time and time again while continuing to flaunt your own ignorance. Now you've responded with a one-liner, again avoiding addressing the profound and fundamental problems with your ideas. i mentioned several of them, you ignored them all.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 966 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 970 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 969 of 1896 (715478)
01-05-2014 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 967 by Percy
01-05-2014 7:40 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
I'm SO sorry, but dwise and the rest of you just keep wanting to bury MY point and I'm determined to keep it on the table.
The absurdity of the OE interpretation of the sedimentary FACTS as I've described them kills OE. I'm not interested in pretending it's not dead by getting sucked into all the side issues again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 967 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 7:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 972 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-05-2014 8:04 PM Faith has replied
 Message 974 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2014 8:18 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 975 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 8:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 970 of 1896 (715481)
01-05-2014 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 968 by Percy
01-05-2014 7:43 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
There was never any "information" given to answer my point, let alone "correct" information. If the point is squarely faced, no more OE. There are also no profound problems with my ideas, there is only the speculations of my opponents, just speculations, no information, no profound problems. Meanwhile, the absurdity of treating a rock pancake as an era in time, and its fossil contents as an evolutionary stage, needs to be recognized, apprehended, thought about. A rock pancake of hundreds to thousands of miles in length and breadth, in a deep stack of similarly extensive rock pancakes of different flavors -- it's SO absurd I can hardly blame you for wanting to evade the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 968 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 7:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 976 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 8:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 979 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2014 8:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 980 by Pollux, posted 01-05-2014 9:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 984 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2014 3:05 PM Faith has replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 971 of 1896 (715482)
01-05-2014 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by Faith
01-05-2014 3:22 PM


The Strata Speak but you don't know crap about them
Hi Faith,
Some time back I asked you three times to tell me how you determined the depositional evironment from the rocks you see.
You are out in the field, know nothing about the rocks. What do you do?
You did not answer with a procedure to follow because you in fact don't know what you are doing which is quite clear.
You are repeating BS other people told you and actually have no way of knowing if it is true or not.
Your conclusions are smoke blown out your ass, otherwise you could tell me how you came to them.
Let's be honest. I watched you be told over 4 times that a crossection had a different vertical scale than it's horizontal scale. You had no clue what that meant, and went on and on about how could the rocks have been bent so much. They were bent about 0.9 degrees.
Then you post a map of Mississippian age rocks and claim the Redwall Limestone goes all the way from the GC to the UK. You appear to be so dense you do not realize that what you posted is not a formation map. It's just a map of where Mississippian age rocks of whatever kind exist.
Your concept of formations spanning continents is not true, you do not know what you are talking about.
Once again for the fifth time, you are out in the field, what do you do to determine the depositional environment of the rocks you see. What procedure do you follow?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 3:22 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 973 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 8:14 PM petrophysics1 has replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 972 of 1896 (715483)
01-05-2014 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 969 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:48 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
I'm SO sorry, but dwise and the rest of you just keep wanting to bury MY point and I'm determined to keep it on the table.
The absurdity of the OE interpretation of the sedimentary FACTS as I've described them kills OE. I'm not interested in pretending it's not dead by getting sucked into all the side issues again.
This is pretty evasive, Faith. One of your main points is that no erosion occurs between strata. Dwise has posted a seismograph showing just that. How is that a side issue? You say no erosion occurs between layers, he shows you evidence of this, you say it's irrelevant. This is awfully suspicious. I still think you are lying to yourself when you claim that things like the meanders and the brooding dinosaur and the speleothems and the grain sorting (etc. etc.) are not relevant, but I would at least agree that they are not directly addressing your point that no erosion occurred between strata. But that seismograph is addressing exactly that!
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : added quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 969 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1001 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 5:57 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 973 of 1896 (715484)
01-05-2014 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 971 by petrophysics1
01-05-2014 7:55 PM


Re: The Strata Speak but you don't know crap about them
Faith might not exactly understand what you're asking, so just for clarity let me explain that you're asking how she might evaluate a sedimentary layer such as one might find exposed at the Grand Canyon to determine what conditions were like when the sedimentary layer was first deposited.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 971 by petrophysics1, posted 01-05-2014 7:55 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 982 by petrophysics1, posted 01-05-2014 10:59 PM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 974 of 1896 (715485)
01-05-2014 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 969 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:48 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
... the rest of you just keep wanting to bury MY point and I'm determined to keep it on the table.
Repeating misinformation doesn't make it any more valid.
Now I know that your flood scenario is false because:
If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS?: Why does the canyon cross two high ridges when paths north and south are at lower elevations?
The darker green is higher than the lighter green, the red outlines would be the topographic level dividing dark from light.
So IF the canyon is formed by catastrophic flood flows draining the purported WWF, then
  1. Why are there no canyons in either the northern path following lower elevations, or the southern path following lower elevations?
  2. Why does water flow from the Kanab Plateau south to the Colorado River via Kanab Creek which starts lower than the north rim?
  3. Why does water flow from the Coconino Plateau north to the Colorado River via Meadow Creek which starts lower than the south rim?
Does catastrophic flood drainage flow go magically uphill?
Creationists claiming the Grand Canyon is due to catastrophic flood drainage got some 'splainin' to do.
The topic of this thread is "Why the Flood Never Happened" and this fits into the topic quite well.
Message 7: Northern Route
I captured this shot of where rte 89 crosses the ridge north of Grand Canyon:
http://i862.photobucket.com/...onRoute89pass_zps22cb79e8.jpg
The contours are at 40ft intervals and the two markers are on the 5600 ft contour with no other contour between them, so we know the highest point is less than 5640 ft.
The rims of the canyon are 7250 ft (south) and 7750 (north) ... and the high point of the Kaibab plateau is over 8400 ft ...
So the water would need to cut through (7250-5640 =) 1,610 ft of Kaibab Plateau before it gets to the elevation of the Rte 89 pass ...
A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.
There's another pass a bit more north where another road crosses the Plateau, and its highest elevation is ~5800 ft and the width of water at the 7000 ft elevation is wider than the Grand Canyon ...
A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.
That's a lot of water to just disappear or magically NOT flow downhill.
Southern Route
The highest elevation on the southern route shown is ~6460 ft, still ~800 ft below the canyon rim and this too would have a wide span of water at the 7000 ft elevation.
A location that does not show any evidence of a water erosion channel across the ridge.
Conclusion
Any flood flow that could have cut the canyon in its current location with the ridge intact would also have cut drainage channels in these locations. There is no evidence of drainage channels across these passes. There was no flood flow.
If flood flow carved the Grand Canyon then there should be at least two other canyons that would have been carved at the same time.
And both of those should have been bigger than the Grand Canyon because they would have started with more flow.
You have said that at the beginning of the Flood carving the water filled it to the top -- so no matter how you cut the cake there should have been massive channel erosion in these two places.
There is no such evidence there (or on any other mountain pass) so your model is false.
It doesn't matter what you understand about geology and science this is just plain simple observation: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the topography and understand that flood waters did not drain across these areas at any time.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : photo links

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 969 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 975 of 1896 (715488)
01-05-2014 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 969 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:48 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Fatih writes:
I'm SO sorry, but dwise and the rest of you just keep wanting to bury MY point and I'm determined to keep it on the table.
Your point about your expectations that the degree of "disruptions" in the sedimentary layers should be greater than shown in those diagrams was answered a number of times. You gave no indication of understanding the answers, ignored them mostly, then merely repeated your assertions again and again. Your answers were already provided in this thread - asking us to repeat them yet again is just you stalling while trying to waste people's time.
The absurdity of the OE interpretation of the sedimentary FACTS as I've described them kills OE. I'm not interested in pretending it's not dead by getting sucked into all the side issues again.
If you truly believe all the severe and fatal flaws in your flood scenario are side issues then your ignorance is even worse than we thought. I just recently mentioned a number of them, but you just keep ignoring them. Dwise1 mentioned the buried river meander that could only have formed over many, many years in a terrestrial landscape. RAZD keeps asking you to explain how your post-flood catastrophic flood could have carved a canyon into an uplifted region instead of flowing around it. From the minor to the very significant, you haven't provided an answer to a single problem. All you're able to do is criticize people working hard to provide you correct information while ridiculously asserting that your incredulity based on ignorance should be taken seriously.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 969 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024