juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 72
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Got any evidence?
I didn't think so.
Gee, it's only a couple of pages back. It isn't too hard to go back and read the discussion.
I asked you "What sediment properties are required for a fast flow to form meanders?"
You replied "Sediments with a high shear strength"
I then asked for an example "Such as?"
You replied "un-indurated sedimentary rocks."
I then asked you to "Give an example of such un-indurated sedimentary rocks, that is; rock that has not been hardened by heat or baking or sediments that have not been hardened through cementation or compaction, or both, without the introduction of heat."
You replied "There are many quite weak sedimentary rocks"
I then asked you to "name one"
You never bothered to respond.
Paul of Eugene, OR suggested sandstone.
If you don't accept sandstone, can you give another specific example of an un-indurated sedimentary rock with a high shear strength, that is also quite weak that would allow incised or entrenched meanders to form under catastrophic flood conditions?
I know you don't have any evidence for the idea that a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour).The global Flood only happened ONCE.
I know you don't have any evidence for the idea that a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour).
You can admit it. No one will think the worse of you for admitting you have no evidence.
Sandstone and shale may not be hard compared to granite but they are certainly hard when it comes to erosion via catastrophic flood waters.There are various type of sandstone and shale. As long as it is not a hard rock, it will work.
It would work just like it works right now, by taking a very long time to form incised meanders.Now I am not sure how would the meandering process work on hard rocks. I don't know. I have never thought about this question before.
How is seawater evidence for a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour)The evidence is the water, the seawater.
Sandstone and shale may not be hard compared to granite but they are certainly hard when it comes to erosion via catastrophic flood waters.
How is seawater evidence for a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour)
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?No. There are various grade of induration in sandstones. Some sand"stones" are pretty soft. It would crumble in your hand.
Seriously? I ask for how seawater is evidence of a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour) and this is your response?Because the earth has a lot of it.
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?
Seriously? I ask for how seawater is evidence of a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour) and this is your response?
The only possible way for "a lot" of seawater to be evidence of a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour) is if you knew how much seawater was here before the rift broke open. Do you know that?
Not enough water and not fast enough. Do you understand how radiometric dating also totally refutes the ideas of Flood advocate?We have a mechanism to provide water and we have the water. That is pretty complete.
Then I guess all this talk about soft and crumbly sandstone is just a diversion?No. They are hard.
Why? The layers of limestone in between layers of sandstone in the Grand Canyon are all eroded the same as the sandstone.But, limestone would be a different story.
No, it isn't. You have no evidence of the mechanism and no way to compare the before and after amounts of water. Therefore the simple existence of seawater cannot be used as evidence of a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour).We have a mechanism to provide water and we have the water. That is pretty complete.
Then I guess all this talk about soft and crumbly sandstone is just a diversion?
Why? The layers of limestone in between layers of sandstone in the Grand Canyon are all eroded the same as the sandstone.
No, it isn't. You have no evidence of the mechanism and no way to compare the before and after amounts of water. Therefore the simple existence of seawater cannot be used as evidence of a tectonic rift zone where movement unleashed hundreds of trillions of gallons of water (per hour).
I agree that limestone is different than sandstone but in the Grand Canyon the limestone is eroded away in the same way as the sandstone above and below it.No. Limestone is very different.
I agree that limestone is different than sandstone but in the Grand Canyon the limestone is eroded away in the same way as the sandstone above and below it.
And no evidence is no evidence.Evidence is 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?How do we qualify an evidence?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?