Ice Age?

[Loke]

I said semi hardened Have you ever made a mud ball and looked at it a year later ? In fact I am talking hardened due to compaction (not dryness) under many meters (or hundreds of meters) of other sediment.

i am no geologist so i cant argue this point. unfortunatly.

Fortunatly I'm a geologist, and as matter of fact, today I visited a 280 meter borehole. I'd say 280 meters is close to hundreds of meters. The sediments penetrated were not hardened but were all soft sediments - clay, silt, sand - as always, drilling through Quatenary sediments into Tertiary sediments in my country which is Denmark.

Regards
Loke

 

[A4C]

Fortunatly I'm a geologist, and as matter of fact, today I visited a 280 meter borehole. I'd say 280 meters is close to hundreds of meters. The sediments penetrated were not hardened but were all soft sediments - clay, silt, sand - as always, drilling through Quatenary sediments into Tertiary sediments in my country which is Denmark.

Regards
Loke

Thank you for backing up my claim . So if you picked up a slab of these still soft sediments and and put pressure on one side would it not be posible to "bend" the slab so the "layers" remained together around the bend. Now this is a mini version of some rock formations at the Grand Canyon Right? Now supposing those layers were allowed to dry out (ie have the water table hundreds of meters below it ) would not pressure and time cause that to form into rock (even in the bent form)?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

A4C, perhaps you missed the link I posted earlier. http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r02.htm

Care to comment?

 

[notto]

Thank you for backing up my claim . So if you picked up a slab of these still soft sediments and and put pressure on one side would it not be posible to "bend" the slab so the "layers" remained together around the bend. Now this is a mini version of some rock formations at the Grand Canyon Right? Now supposing those layers were allowed to dry out (ie have the water table hundreds of meters below it ) would not pressure and time cause that to form into rock (even in the bent form)?

He didn't back up your point. He was talking about the geology in Denmark, not what we find at the Grand Canyon (limestone, sandstone, shale, volcanic rock).

How does 'semi-hardened' rock erode into pebbles and boulders? How does your model explain conglomerate rocks that are made up of smaller rocks and sand that have eroded from the grand canyon?

How did the wall stay up if they were made up of semi-soft sediment? The same mechanism you discuss in this post that would cause the rocks to bend would cause the walls to sag and ooze and fill the canyon as fast as it was eroded and would form a wide V valley, especially if it was fast moving large amounts of water that eroded it.

The canyon was rock while it was eroding. It didn't turn to rock later, especially not under a year and before the erosion took place.

Most rock can bend. This isn't evidence for your model. You are still denying the evidence that has been presented to you. Address the geology at the Canyon.

What features of the sides of the grand canyon or the eroded materials are consistent with erosion from semi-hard materials? What type of materials are they made of? How is this type of material kept 'semi-hard'? How did it get semi-hard in a year while it was still supposedly under water?

 

[A4C]

A4C, perhaps you missed the link I posted earlier. http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r02.htm

Care to comment?

Yes Look on this link http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pipes.asp

 

[A4C]

Most rock can bend. This isn't evidence for your model. You are still denying the evidence that has been presented to you. Address the geology at the Canyon

.

OK How about this from this page :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/indoctrinator.asp

Many sedimentary rocks are so brittle they would break under any applied pressure, no matter how slowly applied. The fact of intense folding in some now-brittle rocks shows they were still soft when the pressure was applied. A good example is the Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon, where rock layers including the Tapeats Sandstone were uplifted by a mile, and in one place bend about 90 degrees in just over 30m. This is claimed to have been 480 million years old at the time of the warping, by which time it would have surely hardened. But if it was hard at the time of warping, we would expect to find evidence of great stress, e.g. elongated sand grains or broken crystals of cementing minerals. Yet we don’t, indicating that the material was still soft while bending, showing that it could not have been laid down over millions of years but was deformed soon after deposition, thus eliminating a half billion years from the supposed geological time scale.

Is that addressed enough for you?

 

[notto]

Yes Look on this link http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pipes.asp

What does this have to do with lava dams in the colorado river?

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_dump_on_aig's_tas_walker.htm

 

[A4C]

What does this have to do with lava dams in the colorado river?

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_dump_on_aig's_tas_walker.htm

It shows the geology behind lava formation in sediment layers .
Here is the introductory quote from AiG:

Another important evidence that large thicknesses of layered sedimentary rock formed and hardened more-or-less simultaneously is fluidisation pipes. This is where a hot lava flow intruded horizontally and very rapidly underneath a sedimentary deposit, boiled the water touching it, which welled up to form a vertical column above the hot spot. In this column, the unconsolidated sediment transformed into a fluid suspension, destroying the layered structure, and then hardening into a noticeable ‘pipe’ structure. See Walker, T., Fluidisation pipes: evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe, CEN Tech. J. 14(3):8–9, 2000.

 

[notto]

It shows the geology behind lava formation in sediment layers .
Here is the introductory quote from AiG:

No, it shows the geology behind 'some' lava formation in sedimentary layers. The lava dams at the grand canyon came after the erosion and are on top of the already eroded canyon, not coming from underneath it.

You seem to be taking a lot of specific examples and trying to apply them generally to an area that doesn't match them. Next you'll be telling us that the ash and mud layers near mount saint helens are like the sandstone and limestone layers of the grand canyon. You can't generalize stuff like this, you need to look at the evidence at the site we are discussing.

 

[notto]

.

OK How about this from this page :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/indoctrinator.asp


Is that addressed enough for you?

Safarti should talk this over with David Allen.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/warped.asp

However, there are other instances where it is obvious that the folding occurred while the rock was solid. Deformation experiments have shown that such folding is possible under extreme pressure in a short time or under moderate pressure in a long time.

 

[A4C]

No, it shows the geology behind 'some' lava formation in sedimentary layers. The lava dams at the grand canyon came after the erosion and are on top of the already eroded canyon, not coming from underneath it.

You seem to be taking a lot of specific examples and trying to apply them generally to an area that doesn't match them. Next you'll be telling us that the ash and mud layers near mount saint helens are like the sandstone and limestone layers of the grand canyon. You can't generalize stuff like this, you need to look at the evidence at the site we are discussing.

So what are we disagreeing on -whether lava exists in sediment layers No we agree on that. It seems like you want me to take a trip to US and study what you are talking about and give you first hand comment OK I will do that if you will provide the plane fare and accommodation and all expenses (Nothing too flashy but just make sure that there are no fleas in the bed )
All I can surmise from the sketchy detail I have is that perhaps the lava formed within the sediment layers while all was submerged and the upper layers got removed in the devastation of the receeding waters -I dont know anything is posssible

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

A4C, trying to get you to answer the question regarding the GC is like trying to catch a fly high on crack.

You cited Austin as saying that the GC was formed by a global flood, yet when I reference the lava dam source, also by Austin, you dance around the subject.

What is your opinion? There was a global flood and GC is a direct result, or GC was formed by a LOCAL catastrophe when lava dams broke. Which is it?

 

[A4C]

Safarti should talk this over with David Allen.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/warped.asp

However, there are other instances where it is obvious that the folding occurred while the rock was solid. Deformation experiments have shown that such folding is possible under extreme pressure in a short time or under moderate pressure in a long time.

That is a good paper from obviously a highly respected person. Like many there are different opinions on things Perhaps I have thought differently to others on this issue and have seriously considered the massive forces that can be involved in receeding flood waters. Also the fact that that water could very well flow in differing directions based on what path led to the lowest point. This could happen with a breach of a damming effect for instance. This could account for some weird rock formations with soft slabs of sediment.

 

[A4C]

There was a global flood and GC is a direct result, ?

Yes

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes

Then please answer my previous question.

How do you account for either side of GC being comparatively untouched the global flood?

 

[A4C]

Then please answer my previous question.

How do you account for either side of GC being comparatively untouched the global flood?

Well consider this : What do you think the GC would look like prior to the receeding of the flood waters ?
Hint (it didn't exist)

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Well consider this : What do you think the GC would look like prior to the receeding of the flood waters ?
Hint (it didn't exist)

Quit dodging the question, it's disingenuous and irritating. You contend that GC was formed by a global flood. Please explain how either side of GC was left comparatively untouched.

 

[A4C]

Quit dodging the question, it's disengenous and irritating. You contend that GC was formed by a global flood. Please explain how either side of GC was left comparatively untouched.

When water covered the US as a result of the global flood soils would have been washed from high mountainous areas and sedimentation would have evenly settled over lower areas including the area now covered by the Grand Canyon. As the flood waters began to receed the water would have found its way to the lower levels by a fortuitous path which would begin to be come even more eroded and form a permanent path of receeding waters. The Grand Canyon is an example of this pathway for mega cubic miles of receeding flood water and redistributed sediment. The sediment adjacent to this pathway would not necessarilly get disturbed
I hope this clarifies for you

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

When water covered the US as a result of the global flood soils would have been washed from high mountainous areas and sedimentation would have evenly settled over lower areas including the area now covered by the Grand Canyon. As the flood waters began to receed the water would have found its way to the lower levels by a fortuitous path which would begin to be come even more eroded and form a permanent path of receeding waters. The Grand Canyon is an example of this pathway for mega cubic miles of receeding flood water and redistributed sediment. The sediment adjacent to this pathway would not necessarilly get disturbed
I hope this clarifies for you

Not in the least. But thanks for at least answering the question.

 

[Asimov]

If my memory serves me right the "argument" was whether Noah could use pitch - well he could because you dont need fossil fuels to do it -end of "argument"

No, you essentially avoided what the Hebrew text is saying. The Hebrew text doesn't say pitch, it says bitumen, which IS a fossil fuel.