Grand Canyon Disproves Creationism

[Job 33:6]

@pat34lee
Heres something we can try.

http://images.slideplayer.com/35/10347899/slides/slide_5.jpg
https://zionpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/GEO-MAP-2.jpg

We can review the list above regarding relative dating, and then we can ask ourselves how long of a list we can make, regarding the sequence of events in the grand canyon. As a hint, it would be a very long list.

Young earthers tend to believe the flood happened maybe 4000 years ago. The grand canyon itself is upwards of 6000 feet deep. There are layers of impervious shales (like we discussed in our other topic), limestone, sandstones, schist, gneiss, granet (garnet and granite mixed? gotta love typos), marble, and probably a a whole host of other rock types such as the shinumo quartzite.

There is really just no feasible way that the colorado could erode away even just the basement rocks, let alone the rest of the canyon in 4000 years. And if we propose deposition of the canyon during the flood, we are faced with insurmountable issues, such as how the flood would deposit such a complex sequence. It isnt sorted or ordered by density. No flood could ever deposit such a complex sequence.

It just doesnt make any sense.

You also get metamorphosed rock, like marble at the top of the canyon, but metamorphosed rock takes extremes in heat and pressure to form. How could it be that rock is metamorphosed at the surface? Did the planet increase to 500 degrees celcius in tempature during the flood?

 

[Job 33:6]

At these temperatures, Noah would be incinerated or crushed under extreme atmospheric pressure.

It just doesn't make sense

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Quick chemistry question:
What do you get when you add CO2 to H2O?

I, too, passed high school chemistry. Carbonic acid is a very weak acid and is present in surface water in very low concentrations. Given time and prolonged contact, it will dissolve limestone very slowly. See stalagmites and stalactites for an idea of quantities dissolved and rates of dissolution.

My turn for a question: How much rain does the Grand Canyon get every year, and what is the height of the water table there?

And with that tiny river running through it, no less.
How did that cut 18 miles wide and in short enough
time to leave the banks mostly vertical?

You clearly have no concept of differential erosion. Vertical walls in unconsolidated sediments and loosely-cemented or highly fractured rocks (like mudstone, some sandstone, shale, etc) are indicative of rapid erosion. Vertical walls in harder rocks (most limestone, quartzite, intrusive igneous rocks, etc) are indicative of normal erosion rates.

If you look at a cross-section of the Grand Canyon, you'll see that it gets wider at points where less-consolidated units appear - the Hermit Shale, the Supai Group, and the Bright Angel Shale. These less-consolidated units eroded more easily and undercut the more resistant units, allowing the canyon to erode back and get wider.

To me, it sounds like they're missing sea currents and floating debris.
And no, I don't think it could last 30 million years without anything
disturbing the purity of the chalk, like earthquakes or volcanoes.
I think the chalk formed in a short period of years, probably before
the flood, rather than after. At no time since would it have a perfect
environment in which to grow.

The paragraph you quoted is a bit of an oversimplification - the chalk beds are not nearly as homogeneous as you're making them out to be. There are plenty of other fossils in some layers (gastropods, ammonites and nautiloids, sponges - which can't have been deposited rapidly, as they would have grown in place) as well as layers of other rock types besides chalk.

The area represented by the rocks in the Dover Cliffs would be analogous to something like the central Pacific Ocean of today - far from plate boundaries and land. The occasional terrestrial object does get carried out there, but it's pretty rare and we'd be unlikely to find it in a narrow vertical cross-section of a very small (~15 mile wide) area. As an analogy, think of it like this: you've baked a two-layer cake and you dropped an eyelash into it by accident. Now take the top layer of the cake and throw it away. Then slice the cake in half vertically and throw away one of the halves. In the exposed area you have (half of the top of the lower layer and the cross-sectional slice through the middle), how likely are you to find that eyelash?

 

[Dale]

Now, where are the evidences of years or centuries of erosion
between layers? Layer 10, just to pick a number at random, is
the same from one end of the canyon to the other. Same height,
same thickness. Even the canyon walls don't show the weathering
that would prove long periods of time. They are too tall and not
washed out wide enough from weathering. It's like they were laid
at the same time, during a flood possibly.

Exposed limestone material. That erodes very quickly.

Pat,

You say that limestone erodes quickly.

The pyramids of Egypt were built of limestone blocks, at least that was the most common building material.
The Great Pyramid was built using limestone blocks.

The limestone pyramids of Egypt have been weathering for thousands of years and they are still there.

It would take a very long time for hundreds of feet thick of limestone to erode at the Grand Canyon.

 

[Job 33:6]

Pat,

You say that limestone erodes quickly.

The pyramids of Egypt were built of limestone blocks, at least that was the most common building material.
The Great Pyramid was built using limestone blocks.

The limestone pyramids of Egypt have been weathering for thousands of years and they are still there.

It would take a very long time for hundreds of feet thick of limestone to erode at the Grand Canyon.

Thats exactly what I said, he seems to think there was some sort of hydrophobic material put around the pyramid though.

 

[Dale]

And with that tiny river running through it, no less.
How did that cut 18 miles wide and in short enough
time to leave the banks mostly vertical?

Pat,
In this post you say that the Colorado River is a "tiny river."
Actually, today, 70% of its water has been diverted for irrigation.
It is also true that the climate of the area was probably much wetter at some times in the distant past.

"The river now serves 30 million people in seven U.S. states and Mexico, with 70 percent or more of its water siphoned off to irrigate 3.5 million acres of cropland."

Source:
The Colorado River Runs Dry | Science | Smithsonian

 

[omega2xx]

Geologists believe in Uniformitarianism, that most features of the Earth's surface were created by slow, steady action of natural forces over long periods of time.

Too bad believing does not make the belief true. Evidence for belief is also required.

>>Creationists believe that the Grand Canyon was either formed during Noah's Deluge or by one or more sudden, catastrophic flash floods. Neither of these creationist views holds up to scrutiny.<<

Irrelevant unless you can prove there was no flood

The Grand Canyon has at least eleven layers, eleven major strata. One massive worldwide flood would not have laid down such a complicated series of strata. For even the top layer to have been laid down by a one-year flood is impossible.

Saying something doesn't make it true either.

"The fossils occurring in these deposits indicate that the topmost layers are at least 250 million years old,

You need to do some research on the problems with the current dating methods used to get these times.

and represent life forms that do not exist today.

How do you know they didn't die in the flood?

Limestones are formed by the slow deposition of microscopic marine creatures.

Or God created the earth with limestone deposits already in place.

There is absolutely no way that these creatures could have laid down deposits hundreds of feet thick in the one year period of the Genesis flood."

That is the only way it could happen. Fossils need soft earth to die in.

The Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River, which has four tributaries, the Little Colorado, the San Juan, the Dolores and the Green River. The Green River alone travels 720 miles from its origin in Wyoming. A flash flood could not create such a complicated landscape, including U-turns in the Colorado River and also in its tributaries.

That is not the only thing that happened. The fountains of the great deep burst open and the flood-gates of heaven were opened(Gen 7:11).




Source:
Creationist Grand Canyon Argument[/QUOTE]

Geologists believe in Uniformitarianism, that most features of the Earth's surface were created by slow, steady action of natural forces over long periods of time.

Creationists believe that the Grand Canyon was either formed during Noah's Deluge or by one or more sudden, catastrophic flash floods. Neither of these creationist views holds up to scrutiny.

The Grand Canyon has at least eleven layers, eleven major strata. One massive worldwide flood would not have laid down such a complicated series of strata. For even the top layer to have been laid down by a one-year flood is impossible.

"The fossils occurring in these deposits indicate that the topmost layers are at least 250 million years old, and represent life forms that do not exist today. Limestones are formed by the slow deposition of microscopic marine creatures. There is absolutely no way that these creatures could have laid down deposits hundreds of feet thick in the one year period of the Genesis flood."

The Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River, which has four tributaries, the Little Colorado, the San Juan, the Dolores and the Green River. The Green River alone travels 720 miles from its origin in Wyoming. A flash flood could not create such a complicated landscape, including U-turns in the Colorado River and also in its tributaries.




Source:
Creationist Grand Canyon Argument

Source:
God's Inspired and inerrant word.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Too bad believing does not make the belief true. Evidence for belief is also required.

Right back atcha.

>>Creationists believe that the Grand Canyon was either formed during Noah's Deluge or by one or more sudden, catastrophic flash floods. Neither of these creationist views holds up to scrutiny.<<

Irrelevant unless you can prove there was no flood

That's not how it works. You make the claim that there was a flood - it's up to you to prove that it happened, not for anyone to show that it didn't. There is zero physical evidence for a global flood.

Saying something doesn't make it true either.

Pot, kettle. And he's not just saying it. The 11 major rock units in the Grand Canyon can be seen. We can observe modern processes to understand rates of deposition and what types of sediment and sedimentary structures are seen in specific environments, then we can observe those same sediments and sedimentary structures in the rocks of the Grand Canyon.

You need to do some research on the problems with the current dating methods used to get these times.

Radiometric dating was the focus of my degree and I've spent years refuting erroneous claims about it on here. Hit me with your best shot.

How do you know they didn't die in the flood?

Or God created the earth with limestone deposits already in place.

Can't have it both ways. The upper layer of the Grand Canyon is a fossil-rich limestone (Kaibab Limestone). Limestone, by the laws of physics and chemistry, cannot be deposited rapidly in a flood. It is formed by the gradual precipitation of calcium carbonate from water and requires calm conditions to form. So either the fossils are of animals that died in the flood and the laws of physics and chemistry were broken in the process or God created limestone with fossils and other misleading signs of apparent age already in it. Or maybe you're wrong?

That is the only way it could happen. Fossils need soft earth to die in.

Incorrect. They can also form by falling into mud on the ocean floor (and in several other different ways).

 

[omega2xx]

Right back atcha.

That's not how it works. You make the claim that there was a flood - it's up to you to prove that it happened, not for anyone to show that it didn't.

Here is the first statement in this thread: Geologists believe in Uniformitarianism, that most features of the Earth's surface were created by slow, steady action of natural forces over long periods of time." You prove that and I will prove what I believe.

There is zero physical evidence for a global flood

You said it, so now it is up to you to prove it. Then prove it was created by

Pot, kettle. And he's not just saying it. The 11 major rock units in the Grand Canyon can be seen. We can observe modern processes to understand rates of deposition and what types of sediment and sedimentary structures are seen in specific environments, then we can observe those same sediments and sedimentary structures in the rocks of the Grand Canyon.

Prove God did not create the earth and the grand canyon just as it is today. Then prove the river created it.

Radiometric dating was the focus of my degree and I've spent years refuting erroneous claims about it on here. Hit me with your best shot.

You have to assume the amount of the element used in the test. You have to assume none of the element was not washed out or not affected by time the environment. You assume a constant decay rate. There are also some prooblem in the dates of lava rocks

]Can't have it both ways. The upper layer of the Grand Canyon is a fossil-rich limestone (Kaibab Limestone). Limestone, by the laws of physics and chemistry, cannot be deposited rapidly in a flood. It is formed by the gradual precipitation of calcium carbonate from water and requires calm conditions to form.

Prove it.

So either the fossils are of animals that died in the flood and the laws of physics and chemistry were broken in the process or God created limestone with fossils and other misleading signs of apparent age already in it. Or maybe you're wrong?

Or maybe the geologist are not as knowledgeable about the subject as they think they are. I may b e wrong, but is it not possible hat you may b e wrong. There are Christian geologist, more in geology than you are who disagree with you.

Incorrect. They can also form by falling into mud on the ocean floor (and in several other different ways).

Name a way they can form other than dying in something that is soft.

 

[Job 33:6]

@omega2xx

A good bit of our modern understanding of uniformitarianism, encompasses the theory of plate tectonics. Plate tectonics and mountain building events are readily observed. When todays processes are considered in reverse, it provides an understanding of the worlds geology.

For example, the mid oceanic ridge at a regular rate, produces basalt and pillow lava, while normal and transform faulting occurs around it. So when we look further away from the ridge itself and continue to see these same qualities, as opposed to thrust faults or other rock types with other properties, it only makes sense that, the rocks further from the ridge formed just as the ones at the ridge are forming today. Beyond that you have geology on one side of the atlantic matching geology on the other side even beyond the oceans, up into the mountains like a mirror image. Also the rate of observed spreading today correlates with rates derived from numerous independent dating methods. Just as other relative dating methods and independent absolute dating methods also correlate.

Similarly, if a person walks through the snow and is making foot tracks. It only makes sense to recognize that the footprints behind the person were formed in the past, just as the footprints that person is currently making, formed in the present.

That is point one. Then, if someone proposes the idea that the footprints formed in some alternative way, such as a global flood, then the responsibility becomes theirs, to explain why a global flood would be a more likely cause for the mid oceanic ridge, than regular every day sea floor spreading that we can observe in todays time.

And the opposition should not ask the uniformitarian supporters to prove that the oppositions idea is false. Not until after the opposition proposes its argument for why the flood is true.

If I said there was an invisible dragon, i would not tell my opposition to prove to me that the dragon didnt exist, not until after i made an argument for why the dragon existed to begin with.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

@omega2xx: please fix your quote tags

Here is the first statement in this thread: Geologists believe in Uniformitarianism, that most features of the Earth's surface were created by slow, steady action of natural forces over long periods of time." You prove that and I will prove what I believe.

Again, that's not how it works - you are making a claim. You must therefore support your claim. Placing conditions that I support a claim that I did not make (and furthermore, one that is almost universally accepted in the scientific community) before you will provide support just makes your position look weak. If you want a summary of the evidence supporting uniformitarianism, I suggest reading an introductory geology textbook.

You have to assume the amount of the element used in the test.

You can use isochron plots, which do not require you to know how much daughter product was in the sample to begin with. You can also use minerals such as zircon, which naturally exclude the daughter products of uranium when they form - in which case, assuming the initial concentration of daughter to be zero is perfectly reasonable and valid.

You have to assume none of the element was not washed out or not affected by time the environment.

Loss of daughter product is something easily noticeable in the data and is controlled by removing weathered material from the sample and avoiding mineral grains that have been damaged.

You assume a constant decay rate.

If decay rates were not constant, we would not see agreement between different dating methods. Also, if decay rates were sped up so that an apparent 4.5 billion years of earth history were compressed into just 6000 years, the planet would be a molten ball of lava.

There are also some prooblem in the dates of lava rocks

Such as? Are you referring to the ICR's RATE project? Because they deliberately used the wrong methods to date their samples (among other dishonest/incorrect scientific practices), then acted surprised when the results turned out weird. It's the equivalent of trying to use a 20-pound sledgehammer to drive a tiny finishing nail into a chair, then being surprised when the chair is destroyed in the process.

All of these points have been refuted thousands of times on these forms. It would behoove you to do some reading of old threads.

Prove it.

Prove what? That the Kaibab Limestone is at the top of the Grand Canyon and is full of fossils? Or how limestone forms? Both are pretty basic knowledge. I'm not here to educate you on elementary geologic principles. Plus you already acknowledged that limestone takes a long time to form when you said that God must have created it that way. That was the point of my comment there - you first said that the fossils died in the flood, then that the layer was created by God in place. Can't be both.

Or maybe the geologist are not as knowledgeable about the subject as they think they are. I may b e wrong, but is it not possible hat you may b e wrong.

Certainly it's possible. I've yet to see any evidence to suggest it though. Just people claiming that their interpretation of Genesis refutes science.

There are Christian geologist, more in geology than you are who disagree with you.

I'm sure there are - even intelligent people can be misled. But there are even more Christian geologists who agree with me.

Name a way they can form other than dying in something that is soft.

That's not what I said. There are plenty of other ways to get mud besides a flood.

 

[omega2xx]

@omega2xx: please fix your quote tags

Again, that's not how it works - you are making a claim. You must therefore support your claim. Placing conditions that I support a claim that I did not make (and furthermore, one that is almost universally accepted in the scientific community) before you will provide support just makes your position look weak. If you want a summary of the evidence supporting uniformitarianism, I suggest reading an introductory geology textbook.

I have read the Genesis Record, have you

You can use isochron plots, which do not require you to know how much daughter product was in the sample to begin with.

If you don't know the original amount, all of you guess are not verifiable.

You can also use minerals such as zircon, which naturally exclude the daughter products of uranium when they form - in which case, assuming the initial concentration of daughter to be zero is perfectly reasonable and valid.

If you assume something to be zero, That means you don't know, making the results questionable.

Loss of daughter product is something easily noticeable in the data and is controlled by removing weathered material from the sample and avoiding mineral grains that have been damaged.

f it sometimes easily noticeable, means sometimes it is not, again makdin gthe resultssssss q


If decay rates were not constant, we would not see agreement between different dating methods. Also, if decay rates were sped up so that an apparent 4.5 billion years of earth history were compressed into just 6000 years, the planet would be a molten ball of lava.


Such as? Are you referring to the ICR's RATE project? Because they deliberately used the wrong methods to date their samples (among other dishonest/incorrect scientific practices), then acted surprised when the results turned out weird. It's the equivalent of trying to use a 20-pound sledgehammer to drive a tiny finishing nail into a chair, then being surprised when the chair is destroyed in the process.

All of these points have been refuted thousands of times on these forms. It would behoove you to do some reading of old threads.


Prove what? That the Kaibab Limestone is at the top of the Grand Canyon and is full of fossils? Or how limestone forms? Both are pretty basic knowledge. I'm not here to educate you on elementary geologic principles. Plus you already acknowledged that limestone takes a long time to form when you said that God must have created it that way. That was the point of my comment there - you first said that the fossils died in the flood, then that the layer was created by God in place. Can't be both.


Certainly it's possible. I've yet to see any evidence to suggest it though. Just people claiming that their interpretation of Genesis refutes science.


I'm sure there are - even intelligent people can be misled. But there are even more Christian geologists who agree with me.


That's not what I said. There are plenty of other ways to get mud besides a flood.[/QUOTE]

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I have read the Genesis Record, have you

Yup. Your point?

If you don't know the original amount, all of you guess are not verifiable.

Knowing the original amount is not necessary with an isochron. It's not part of the calculation. No guesswork required.

If you assume something to be zero, That means you don't know, making the results questionable.

Sure, but as I said we know what a non-zero number will do to the results. And it's pretty easy to independently verify using other dating methods.

f it sometimes easily noticeable, means sometimes it is not, again makdin gthe resultssssss q

Again, we know what contamination looks like. It's not "sometimes" easily noticeable - it's simply easily noticeable. And if you're ever unsure, you can use other dating methods to verify your results. Different dating methods use different parent and daughter particles with different decay chains. If there is contamination, they will not agree.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Geologists believe in Uniformitarianism, that most features of the Earth's surface were created by slow, steady action of natural forces over long periods of time.

Creationists believe that the Grand Canyon was either formed during Noah's Deluge or by one or more sudden, catastrophic flash floods. Neither of these creationist views holds up to scrutiny.

The Grand Canyon has at least eleven layers, eleven major strata. One massive worldwide flood would not have laid down such a complicated series of strata. For even the top layer to have been laid down by a one-year flood is impossible.

"The fossils occurring in these deposits indicate that the topmost layers are at least 250 million years old, and represent life forms that do not exist today. Limestones are formed by the slow deposition of microscopic marine creatures. There is absolutely no way that these creatures could have laid down deposits hundreds of feet thick in the one year period of the Genesis flood."

The Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River, which has four tributaries, the Little Colorado, the San Juan, the Dolores and the Green River. The Green River alone travels 720 miles from its origin in Wyoming. A flash flood could not create such a complicated landscape, including U-turns in the Colorado River and also in its tributaries.




Source:
Creationist Grand Canyon Argument

The Grand Canyon was formed by catastrophic forces. At the Orrville Dam in California we saw what water could do at 100,000 cubit feet per second. This is the amount of force it took to create the grand canyon. Gradualism could not have created the Grand Canyon because gradualism does not produce enough force to do that.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The Grand Canyon was formed by catastrophic forces. At the Orrville Dam in California we saw what water could do at 100,000 cubit feet per second. This is the amount of force it took to create the grand canyon. Gradualism could not have created the Grand Canyon because gradualism does not produce enough force to do that.

I've got news for you: the natural discharge of the Colorado River was actually about 100,000 cfs prior to all of the major dam projects of the 1920s. Even now, it'll still hit 20-30,000 cfs in the summer, and they do the occasional high-flow experiment which bumps the discharge up to ~40,000 cfs. Flooding in the mid-'80s produced flows as high as 300,000 cfs.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I've got news for you: the natural discharge of the Colorado River was actually about 100,000 cfs prior to all of the major dam projects of the 1920s. Even now, it'll still hit 20-30,000 cfs in the summer, and they do the occasional high-flow experiment which bumps the discharge up to ~40,000 cfs. Flooding in the mid-'80s produced flows as high as 300,000 cfs.

Then whoever designed the oroville dam spillway is an idiot of it can not handle 100,000 cfs.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Then whoever designed the oroville dam spillway is an idiot of it can not handle 100,000 cfs.

On that we can agree.

 

[omega2xx]

I accidently hit the wrong key and my original response jumped off the track. Hopefully this one will be better

I have read the Genesis Record, have you




If you don't know the original amount, all of you guess are not verifiable.




If you assume something to be zero, That means you don't know, making the results questionable.



If it sometimes easily noticeable, means sometimes it is not, again making the resultss questionable.

If decay rates were not constant, we would not see agreement between different dating methods.

Actually there is some disagreement between some of the methods used. However it is irrelevant. You can't say the rate is constant unless you have been measuring it for 4 billion years.

Also, if decay rates were sped up so that an apparent 4.5 billion years of earth history were compressed into just 6000 years, the planet would be a molten ball of lava.

Evidence please. To know that you need to know at what speed that would happen, and you have no idea what the rate has been when it has not been measured.

Such as? Are you referring to the ICR's RATE project? Because they deliberately used the wrong methods to date their samples (among other dishonest/incorrect scientific practices), then acted surprised when the results turned out weird. It's the equivalent of trying to use a 20-pound sledgehammer to drive a tiny finishing nail into a chair, then being surprised when the chair is destroyed in the process.

What is dishonest is you claiming they did it deliberately. Shame on you fore making a statement you can't support.

All of these points have been refuted thousands of times on these forms. It would behoove you to do some reading of old threads.

It would behoove you to back up your staement

Prove what? That the Kaibab Limestone is at the top of the Grand Canyon and is full of fossils? Or how limestone forms? Both are pretty basic knowledge.

I don't remember the comment you made that I was referring to.

I'm not here to educate you on elementary geologic principles.

Good. How about supporting what you say with some proved science methods.

Plus you already acknowledged that limestone takes a long time to form when you said that God must have created it that way.

Just the opposite. if God created limestone, He did it in one day.

That was the point of my comment there - you first said that the fossils died in the flood, then that the layer was created by God in place. Can't be both.

I didn't say God created the layer in place. I said he could have.

Certainly it's possible. I've yet to see any evidence to suggest it though. Just people claiming that their interpretation of Genesis refutes science.

And I haven seen any scientific evidence that supports your beliefs.

I'm sure there are - even intelligent people can be misled. But there are even more Christian geologists who agree with me.

I doubt that but it is irrelevant. I doesn't mater what people say, it what they can prove with real scientific evidence.

That's not what I said. There are plenty of other ways to get mud besides a flood.

Of course but you still need mud to get fossil. To bad none of those fossils were intermediates.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I accidently hit the wrong key and my original response jumped off the track. Hopefully this one will be better

Again, please fix your quote tags. It's a pain to go through and copy/paste everything because you're double-quoting. All you need is a single set of quote tags around each statement that you want to talk about.

Actually there is some disagreement between some of the methods used.

Citation needed.

Evidence please. To know that you need to know at what speed that would happen, and you have no idea what the rate has been when it has not been measured.

Radioactive decay produces heat. We know how much heat each step in any given decay chain produces. If all of the radioactive decay that appears to have occurred did so in 6000 years, the heat produced would be enough to melt the planet.

What is dishonest is you claiming they did it deliberately. Shame on you fore making a statement you can't support.

Using a dating method that is known to only produce viable results on samples over a certain age to date modern rocks is dishonest. Either they deliberately chose to use the wrong tool for the job in order to get poor results or they misrepresented their credentials as geologists. Either way, they lied. Plain and simple.

It would behoove you to back up your staement

I, and others, have many times. Still waiting for the same from you. If you're too lazy to use the search function, that's not my problem. I'm sick of retyping the same explanations for every new user who comes in spouting the same tired old PRATTs.

Good. How about supporting what you say with some proved science methods.

Right back atcha.

Just the opposite. if God created limestone, He did it in one day.

I didn't say God created the layer in place. I said he could have.

So was it formed in the flood or created? And if it was created, where did the fossils come from? Why would God place them there?

And I haven seen any scientific evidence that supports your beliefs.

Have you seen any scientific evidence? Ever? Again, it's not my responsibility to educate you on mainstream scientific thought. It's well-established, widely available, and explained far better than I can in the confines of this forum. If you have specific points that you'd like to debate, I'm happy to do so, but please provide references for your claims and I will do my best to do the same. Please note that "Godddit" is not a scientifically valid claim. It may or may not be true, but there is no way to evaluate it scientifically.

I doubt that but it is irrelevant. I doesn't mater what people say, it what they can prove with real scientific evidence.

If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up first?

To bad none of those fossils were intermediates.

Irrelevant to the point being made. You claimed that the fossils had to be formed in a flood because they need mud. I said there are more ways to get mud than floods. What do transitional fossils have to do with that?

 

[Job 33:6]

@RocksInMyHead
@omega2xx

I like to think of the young earth heat transfer issue like this...

So, we have approximately 2100 miles or so between the mid oceanic ridge and north america. Many young earthers propose that the fountains of the deep split the continents during the flood. The flood occurred in the span of perhaps 1 year.

For continents to move 2100 miles in 1 year, thats 1050 miles in 6 months, 525 miles in 3 months, 175 miles in a month, which is 5 to 6 miles per day.

Now imagine, if you went to bed, and when you woke up the next day, the entire appalachian mountains up and down the entire east coast, smashed 3 miles into the rest of central north america.

The mountains would be exploding into the atmosphere under such an insane amount of pressure and heat. One has to wonder how there is no evidence for such a powerful collision when we actually look at the mountains themselves. There are indeed thrust faults, but thrust faults would not form under such extreme collisions. Rocks would not stretch and bend and sheer under such extreme collisions, they would just annihilate one another.

That and we would certainly have far more metamophic rocks than we do, as such extreme pressures would metamorphose everything. The pressure in these collisions would form rocks that...well, just are beyond what we see.

For example, the mountains of new york predominantly consist of sedimentary rocks. If the moutains were truly formed in such an extreme collision...the mountains wouldnt form at all, but hypothetically even if they were to form, they wouldnt form the regular every day shales and sandstones we see, they would more likely all be quartzites and extreme rocks like eclogites or blue and green schists.

Why would the rocks or many mountains not metamorphose if the global flood occurred? The answer is that the global flood isnt responsible for the geology we see today, but tell me something i dont know...