Fossil Record Observation

[Queller]

It should not be.

Why not? Both the limestone and the sandstone were worn away by slow moving water long after they had lithified. Why should they be different?

 

[juvenissun]

And no evidence is no evidence.

You really love these little words games, don't you? Time scales, qualifying evidence, you just never met a scientific term you could accept at face value, have you?

Here you go.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

So what evidence do you have for a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour)?

I have evidences. How do I show it to you?

 

[juvenissun]

Why not? Both the limestone and the sandstone were worn away by slow moving water long after they had lithified. Why should they be different?

Because they are made of different chemicals.

 

[Queller]

Because they are made of different chemicals.

So what? The visible evidence shows they have been worn away by the same process.

 

[Queller]

I have evidences. How do I show it to you?

Umm, the exact same was as everybody else on the forum, describe the evidence then post links where I can review it myself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because they are made of different chemicals.

Both sandstone and limestone can go from poorly to well indurated. Granted, it seems that more limestone strata are well indurated than sandstone. But I have seem some extremely well indurated sandstones and some poorly indurated limestone. Where I grew up their was a sandstone outcrop that I did not recognize as such until after I went to college. It was an outcrop of St. Peter Sandstone and to get a sample of it you would use a shovel.

I don't think that you ever came up with a flood explanation of this formation:

Please note, it had to start with a incised meander. Meanders do not form in flood flow. They form in relatively slow moving streams. See if you can come up with an explanation of how this formed and I will more than likely be able to tell you why you are wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

So what? The visible evidence shows they have been worn away by the same process.

Not by the same process.

 

[juvenissun]

Umm, the exact same was as everybody else on the forum, describe the evidence then post links where I can review it myself.

What link do you like to have on the seawater? Would one from the Wikipedia be good enough?

 

[juvenissun]

How was the incision made?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How was the incision made?

I know how, you need to come up with an explanation consistent with the world wide flood if you want to say that it ever happened.

In the real world we know that the river was very close to sea level in the past. It was on a flood plain that allowed a meander to form. Then as the uplift that formed the Rocky Mountains began the area was raised and the river started to erode down faster. The meander was "frozen" in place as this happened. The uplift was slow and steady and took millions of years, and the river valley shows millions of years of slow steady erosion.


That is the real answer. Now let's see if you can come up with one for your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What link do you like to have on the seawater? Would one from the Wikipedia be good enough?

Only if it supported your claim as to how much water and how fast. If you simply make a reference to an article that you do not understand that will not be counted as evidence.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Are those in the Grand Canyon incised meanders "pretty soft"? What about the layers above and below them that are not sandstone but are eroded away the same way?

This one is funny. Incised meanders form in sinuous river systems. Not in floods.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Placed twice.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How is seawater evidence for a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour)

Because the earth has a lot of it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We have a mechanism to provide water and we have the water. That is pretty complete.

The water was brought to earth by a cosmic "Manneke Pis", of which we have a small scale statue in Brussels:

So... I have a mechanism AND I have the water.

I guess that's +1 for a Cosmic Manneke Pis.

 

[juvenissun]

In the real world we know that the river was very close to sea level in the past. It was on a flood plain that allowed a meander to form. Then as the uplift that formed the Rocky Mountains began the area was raised and the river started to erode down faster. The meander was "frozen" in place as this happened. The uplift was slow and steady and took millions of years, and the river valley shows millions of years of slow steady erosion.

Why would the river "start" to erode faster?

 

[juvenissun]

Only if it supported your claim as to how much water and how fast. If you simply make a reference to an article that you do not understand that will not be counted as evidence.

There is no such reference. I am the first one to say it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is no such reference. I am the first one to say it.

So show us evidence that what you're saying is true.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because they are made of different chemicals.

Which happen to share the property of being able to be worn away by water. In fact, they are slightly water soluble, as are most rocks. There is a reason why water is often called "the universal solvent". Pretty much anything inorganic will dissolve in it. Furthermore, limestone and sandstone are made up of many of the same minerals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would the river "start" to erode faster?

Since the river was uplifted there would have been a greater change in elevation meaning a larger amount of potential energy would be released as it went to the sea. More energy easily turns into more erosional power of the stream.