Summations Only

Thanks for the explanation. You had better change your terminology. Just about everyone everywhere is going to interpret "right after the flood" as referring to after the flood was over. No one's going to think you're referring to the height of the flood. Maybe you could say, "Right after the flood reached its full height..." Well, obviously since I thought you were saying that the flood ended, and that then the Grand Canyon region began uplifting, and that then there was a catastrophic flow, therefore I understood there were two different things. I'm not confused.Faith, I'm just going by what you say. If you're going to use words that mean one thing while expressing a concept that means another, such as "right after the flood" referring to the flood at its full height, then there can be no other conclusion but that you're the one who is seriously confused, and it isn't about geology but simple English. Your confusion continues. Once again, I'm talking about your lake scenario. And is "at the end of the flood" the same as "right after the flood?" You seriously need to fix your terminology. Your confusion continues through the next few paragraphs so I'll just ignore them. But you said "right after the flood" the uplift began, remember? Do you know what the definition of postdiluvian is? It's "existing or occurring after the flood." I don't think the definition means postdiluvian is referring to the flood at its height when it uses the phrase "after the flood," do you? Please change your terminology. What lake, what dam, and what uplifted area are you talking about? There's no uplifted area near the Grand Canyon region large enough to hold a lake a hundred times the size of Missoula. And there's no evidence of any lake in the way there's evidence of ancient lakes like the Missoula, the Lahontan and the Bonneville. With no lake you have no dam. There's also no evidence of any catastrophic flows that would have left their mark all across the landscape.You keep claiming you have all this evidence, but regarding everything you claim happened and every object you claim once existed there is no evidence. Gee, that's great, you're aware of the topology, but you apparently still have no explanation. You think uplift created mile wide cracks in the Earth's surface in the Grand Canyon region? Really? Then what caused Zion Canyon, which is not in an area of uplift?Your idea that these massive canyons are tectonic cracks is silly. The tectonic evidence for cracks this size would be obvious. Plus you seem to have again forgotten that the diagrams greatly exaggerate the degree of bending, so there was nowhere near the amount of stretching required to create mile-wide cracks, and rocks on a scale of miles are very flexible.Canyons are caused by erosion. Canyons are much wider than their rivers because of slope retreat, where erosion causes material to fall off the cliff sides and fall into the river where it is carried away.Abe: Here's the abstract for the paper Use of packrat middens to determine rates of cliff retreat in the eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona: It says that the average rate of slope retreat of this section of the Grand Canyon is roughly a half meter every thousand years, and concludes that therefore the Colorado cut through the Redwall Limestone around 3.7 million years ago.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.Edited by Percy, : Improve clarity of a phrase.

You are quite right. I have not been able to prove dendrochronology and the evidence of lake varves wrong, and I do not think I will find a SCIENTIFIC way of ever doing it.

Radiocarbon dating is pretty accurate, and all the creationist equivocating does not change that a bit.The reason they hate radiocarbon dating, and the results it provides, is that it disproves many of their religious beliefs.The global flood is one of those beliefs; a young earth is another.The contortions they go though to try and get around the dating and old earth evidence would be amusing, if they weren't so pathetic! I don't think even they believe the nonsense they post trying to discredit scientific findings.More likely, they just know science is wrong, and so it doesn't matter what the evidence says--its still wrong.Creation "science" at work, eh?(By the way, I'm sending six more radiocarbon samples to the lab tomorrow, and will have about eight more to send later in the month.)

You have not presented anything in this forum -- ever -- that could cause any trained geologist to question the validity of modern geology. Not you and not the entire horde of paid and unpaid Creationists in the last 2000 years.The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. ― Stephen Hawking

Yes, one does not know whether to laugh or cry over the things they say.
(14 C14 tests, and I suppose you will pick the one that is "right" to publish and reject the rest!)........OOW! My ripped out throat!

Very interesting and clever. Of course, since Faith rejects 14C dating there's no reason why she needs to explain it. And she doesn't even have to make her fantasy compatible with the raw data of 14C measurements. Truly it's easy for her!

I want to show you that I am open minded and want to offer you evidence that you may be right about the Coconino sandstone having been (at least partially) deposited underwater. A paper by Leonard Brand, published in a peer reviewed journal, provides evidence that vertebrate footprints were made underwater.

quote:

---

ABSTRACT
Numerous fossil vertebrate trackways in the Coconino Sandstone of northern Arizona
exhibit several features that imply that these trackways were not made in subaerial conditions.
Some trackways begin or end abruptly on undisturbed bedding planes, and in other trackways
the individual prints are oriented in a different direction from that of the trackway. These
features indicate buoyancy of the animals in water. The animals were swimming in the water
part of the time and at other times walking on the substrate, and they were sometimes orienting
upslope on the surface of the underwater dunes, while being drifted sideways by lateral
currents. Observations on salamander locomotion in a sedimentation tank with flowing water
support this model.

---

and from the conclusion:

quote:

---

These data and other features of the trackways reported by Brand (1979) indicate that the fossil trackways do not lend support to the hypothesis of an eolian sand-dune origin, but rather they point to subaqueous deposition

---

However, being the scientific minded person I am, I can't just look at this one piece of evidence and say its conclusive. The Coconino sandstone is said to cover 200,000 sq. mi at 300 feet thick, which means that over 11,000 cubic miles of sediment was deposited in just 17 days (according to the "150 days to deposit all canyon layers" chart) ** Note: I know you may not agree with this chart exactly, but the time frame would have to be similar to what is shown.How could any animal have survived such sedimentation, let alone left footprints. Besides, the Bible says that the flood killed ALL living creatures (which some argue may not have included fish or insects but certainly included reptiles and amphibians) and the Coconino deposits began on day 113, way to long for these animals to be still swimming, struggling to survive.So, once again, the issue of whether the Coconino sandstone was deposited subaerially or subaquatically is moot to the primary issue. The presence of footprints in and of itself indicates that the Coconino sandstone WAS NOT laid down by the great flood.Sorry, I tried to help you, but I just can't get past those pesky facts.HBD

There might be a way to approach this independent of the ¹⁴C data. If the packrat population of the Grand Canyon can be roughly estimated, and if the number of middens produced in a year by a population of this size can be estimated, then we can estimate how long packrats have occupied the canyon by counting middens. Since the Grand Canyon didn't exist before the flood Faith will be bereft of her claims that antediluvian life was much richer, ridiculous though it is.--Percy

Right, but since it is God's word you are contradicting with your science, you should know that eventually there will be a scientific explanation. Science is fallible, God is not, but you gave up on God. Too bad.

Science is fallible, God is not, and you are fallible. Although you seem to think your interpretation of God's word is infallible. Hint: it isn't.We are contradicting your fallible interpretation of God's word and bemoaning your refusal to follow God's word by studying His creation. (I don't recall the verse offhand, maybe it's Romans 1:20)

God wrote the universe. Man wrote the Bible. It is YOU who are contradicting what God wrote.

Yes I'd found some references to that idea that the tracks were made underwater also and would probably eventually have posted it.I don't have a problem with some animals continuing to survive during phases of the Flood.But it's the overall picture of the whole stack of strata themselves that proves the Flood the best I think, and ought to show the absurdity of the time periods explanations, that's why I focus on it, particularly the fact that the tectonic disturbances occurred after all the strata were laid down which Dr. A thinks he's disproved but hasn't. I wouldn't go by that chart myself, but I don't see any problem with huge deposits carried on huge waves.Consider this: At the current rate of erosion by the Colorado River, in the 70 million years it's supposed to have been flowing it would have eroded away one cubic million miles of material. Quite a bit more than the Grand Canyon ever contained. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There's nothing hard about interpreting God's WRITTEN word on the timing of the Flood.

Then I suggest you re-read your book

quote:

---

And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

---

I suggest YOU reread what you quoted. I said no problem with some surviving during SOME PHASES of the Flood, before its full extent was reached, when everything on the land had died.