Summations Only

In order for something to be eroded, it must first be present.

What else do you have as evidence for the Flood? All the ingredients of my dinner were grown before they were cooked! How do you explain that, evolutionists!

Are you daft? Read what I wrote. Think. Read it again. Think again. Good grief.

But why is it evidence for the Flood? Jumping to conclusions about cherry-picked sites and then universalising those conclusions will emphasise the cherry picking and conclusion jumping rather than leading to the truth.

So make an honest argument which doesn,t rely on jumping to conclusions, or cherry picking if you can.

Well, I am reading it. You write (for example): "This is true of the Grand Canyon where all the strata are there from Tapeats to Kaibab before the canyon itself was cut." Well, yes. This is because in order for a canyon to cut through strata, the strata have to be there before it cuts through them. If they weren't there, it couldn't have cut through them. If the canyon had been cut and then the Coconino Sandstone, for example, had been added afterwards, then if we briefly overlook the gross structural difficulties that this would involve, it would also be true just as a matter of logic that the canyon would not have been cut through it.

How about thinking about the timing, WHEN all this happened, because that has enormous implications for Old Earth theory. Which is of course what my post is about although you seem to be determined to pretend it's not. There are only three possibilities: you are intentionally twisting my point, or you are stupid or you are crazy. I don't think you are stupid or crazy, but I guess I could be wrong about that.

How about thinking about the timing, WHEN all this happened, because that has enormous implications for Old Earth theory.

OK, let's think about the timing. The Grand Canon Supergroup was laid down between ~ 1200 and 740 million years ago. The Tonto Group dates from the Cambrian Period. Then the rest is Carboniferous and Permian, with the Kaibab Limestone being laid down about 270 million years ago. The cutting of the canyon is relatively recent, say within the last 20 million years.

This means that, yes, the canyon cut through the strata after they were in place, there being no other way for a canyon to cut through strata, because duh.

quote:

---

How about thinking about the timing, WHEN all this happened, because that has enormous implications for Old Earth theory. Which

---

The timing of the erosion would not in any way affect the time it took to lay down the strata. So no, your argument is false here. More likely in every case the timing of the erosion disproves your views because it started way too early to even possibly fit.

So you all prefer to blow off the obvious implication of the fact that there was no such disturbance for hundreds of millions of years. Every time I see an example of it such as those hills of sculpted strata in the movie I'm struck with the obvious implication that it makes the millions of years bogus and the Flood the best explanation of the phenomena. We'll deal with the radiometric dating eventually. Creationist ministries already have lots of objections to it anyway.

No erosion "such" as what? If you mean that the Colorado Plateau contains only one Grand Canyon, we concede the point --- but do not see the need to adduce fictional explanations.

I guess all I can do is hope somebody reads it who is not stupid, crazy or malicious, one of which I have to suppose you are, and anybody else who fails to appreciate the point.

As usual, the thing you are supposing is wrong. You should really suppose things less often.

So you all prefer to blow off the obvious implication of the fact that there was no such disturbance for hundreds of millions of years. Every time I see an example of it such as those hills of sculpted strata in the movie I'm struck with the obvious implication that it makes the millions of years bogus and the Flood the best explanation of the phenomena. ...

Even though you have been shown and shown and shown the erosional boundaries between layers and the evidence of other river beds part way up the Grand Canyon wall, and all the other "disturbances" that DID occur ... when just ONE disproves your delusional hypothesis ... you prefer to hide under a blanket of willful ignorance pretending they don't exist.

Even though you have been shown that a great flood would not produce the erosional pattern of the Grand Canyon, but rather the erosional pattern of the scablands, that such erosion does not produce spires and perpendicular canyons and many other features found in the Grand Canyon ... you prefer to deny that the canyon is actually evidence that such a flood did NOT occur during or after it's formation ...

... We'll deal with the radiometric dating eventually. ...

Such as the radiometric evidence of different ages for different parts of the canyon shown by the speleothems and the other evidence of age in the canyon.

... Creationist ministries already have lots of objections to it anyway.

All falsified proclamations, delusional assertions and discredited lies, and none of it supported by objective empirical evidence of the kind found in real science.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ..

RAZD you "show" me this that and the other and I disagree with it. The scablands are NOT what the Flood would do, they are clearly the result of a catastrophically draining large source of water like a huge lake, like Lake Missoula, which in fact IS the source of the scablands. Lake Missoula was most probably water left standing after the Flood, as were the other huge "prehistoric" lakes. And then they all drained away, the Missoula catastrophically.

You also "show" me what you are calling "erosional patterns" in the Grand Canyon and I disagree with all that too. Sorry. You'd need to have LOTS more erosion BETWEEN layers to make the case you need to make against what I'm pointing out. Lots more, tons more, visibly tons more.

The MASSIVE erosion of the entire stack of layers all at one time is something else entirely and it's fantastic evidence against the Old Earth and for the Young Earth and for the receding Flood as the source of the massive erosion. Since this is such fantastic evidence it calls all the OE dating into question. And from what you've written here I have to suppose that you don't know what I'm talking about.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So you all prefer to blow off the obvious implication of the fact that there was no such disturbance for hundreds of millions of years

---

Pardon us for not agreeing with one of your assertions before you even make it, yet alone show it's true,

quote:

---

Every time I see an example of it such as those hills of sculpted strata in the movie I'm struck with the obvious implication that it makes the millions of years bogus and the Flood the best explanation of the phenomena.

---

The fact that you jump to a silly conclusion does kat mean that it is an implied by the evidence. Again you need to make a case, rather than complaining that people don't automatically agree with everything you say.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Faith writes: Looks to me like a massive amount of water washed around those formations and washed away all the strata that had to have been there at one time, leaving those monuments, buttes, bumps, hills, whatever they are. Just as it looks like a massive amount of water washed away the strata above the Kaibab rim of the Grand Canyon and formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase.

You have to blow up this image of West Mitten at Monument Valley to full size to see it clearly, but scree is all around it, far more scree than could have been eroded in the few thousand years since your imagined flood:

Massive flows of water do not erode rock quickly. For example, Niagara falls cut back about 5 feet a year before the diversion of water for hydroelectric power generation. I know you think rock in this western region was softer then and only hardened later, but rock doesn't form this way, plus if the rock had been soft then how would a massive flood have left behind totem structures like this instead of breaking them off:

I don't care if you want to put your varves and your tree rings and your radiometric dating on your side of the evidence ledger for now. But this fact has to go on the Flood side of the evidence ledger.

Fact? What fact? All you've done is described what you've imagined in your own mind. In the real world water doesn't erode rock very quickly, and rock doesn't dry and harden.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add clarification about Niagara Falls cutback rate.