Name just one....

[juvenissun]

2 questions:

How old?

Can you show me the calculations for how the grand canyone could have formed much faster?

I'm just trying to understand what your model is.

I explained the principle, and you want an example.

OK, example is simple when the principle is set. Here is one:

One rock layer in the Grand Canyon Series could be made in, say, one million years. So the whole series would take less then 20 (?) million years to complete. Then give another one million years to erode it.

So you know how young could the Grand Canyon be.

 

[TasManOfGod]

But we continue to understand how sediment acts in certain conditions so what research has been done to show that folded layers of strata were more likely caused by a flood while they were soft?

Wow !! A scientific breakthrough
So what is your explanation for folded layers that are supposed to be millions of years apart

 

[TasManOfGod]

I explained the principle, and you want an example.

OK, example is simple when the principle is set. Here is one:

One rock layer in the Grand Canyon Series could be made in, say, one million years. So the whole series would take less then 20 (?) million years to complete. Then give another one million years to erode it.

So you know how young could the Grand Canyon be.

Isn't it simpler to believe that the layers were put down by a massive flood and the erosion occurred when the massive amount of water receeded. A much more likely scenario, after all similar canyons occur all over the world.

 

[TasManOfGod]

But we continue to understand how sediment acts in certain conditions so what research has been done to show that folded layers of strata were more likely caused by a flood while they were soft?

.
.

 

[philadiddle]

Ancient soil can be identified, which is called "paleosol". It can even be identified in metamorphic rocks.

So it exists, that's good. I'm wondering what skywritings argument was then.

 

[philadiddle]

I explained the principle, and you want an example.

OK, example is simple when the principle is set. Here is one:

One rock layer in the Grand Canyon Series could be made in, say, one million years. So the whole series would take less then 20 (?) million years to complete. Then give another one million years to erode it.

So you know how young could the Grand Canyon be.

That sounds too oversimplified. How thick a layer could be made in one million years of what material? Each layer is different and formed in a different way.

I'm also still wondering how old you think the earth is.

 

[philadiddle]

Isn't it simpler to believe that the layers were put down by a massive flood and the erosion occurred when the massive amount of water receeded. A much more likely scenario, after all similar canyons occur all over the world.

I don't see how the layers could be put down by a flood. How do you get alternating layers of sandstone and limestone, with definitive edges between them? Wouldn't we see graded bedding? Why are there signs of wind erosion on many of the layers instead of water erosion.

And what canyon that you know of is similar to the grand canyon that formed quickly?

Wow !! A scientific breakthrough
So what is your explanation for folded layers that are supposed to be millions of years apart

The layers formed while flat. Then they folded together during continental drift.

Here's a simple explanation of they folded. This isn't a problem for geologists, creationists just pretend it is. Creation Science Rebuttals, Creation Magazine, The Truth about Plastic Deformation (folded rock layers)

 

[TasManOfGod]

The layers formed while flat. Then they folded together during continental drift.

So has an experiment been conducted to see if you can bend "million year old" layers of sandstone without cracking

 

[TasManOfGod]

Scientists will clutch at any straw when cornered. I defy any scientist to repeat the conditions for bending layers even using heat if they have to -hey the Flood laid down plenty of oil that you could use for fuel -so what is stopping it.

 

[philadiddle]

So has an experiment been conducted to see if you can bend "million year old" layers of sandstone without cracking

Yes, here is a study of a layer currently being folded because of relatively rapid plate movement:
ScienceDirect - Earth and Planetary Science Letters : Magnetochronology of the Upper Cenozoic strata in the Southwestern Chinese Tian Shan: rates of Pleistocene folding and thrusting

Here is another study of folding consistent with gradual folding of hard sediments. http://suppelab.gl.ntu.edu.tw/upload/1216048664_SuppeChouHookGrowth.pdf

The point of this isn't a "well i think the sediment was soft" vs "I think the sediment was already solidified". The point here isn't about what we assume but what the rocks themselves tell us. The fact that water can't account for what we observe in the rocks is enough to rule out a flood as a possibility. There are signs all throughout the layers of strata that form the grand canyon that each layer was once at the surface (ie burrowing chambers). We do know what flood deposit looks like, it tends to have graded bedding, not alternating limestone and sandstone with definitive edges between the layers.

This is what I meant in the OP when I said I'd like specific evidence. Alluded to something general like "folded layers can only be made in a flood". I want to know why you think that. What do we know about flood deposits and the soft sediments that they produce that would make us think that we can fold soft layers in such way that they can maintain an even thickness as if they were solid when they folded?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Yes, here is a study of a layer currently being folded because of relatively rapid plate movement:
ScienceDirect - Earth and Planetary Science Letters : Magnetochronology of the Upper Cenozoic strata in the Southwestern Chinese Tian Shan: rates of Pleistocene folding and thrusting

Here is another study of folding consistent with gradual folding of hard sediments. http://suppelab.gl.ntu.edu.tw/upload/1216048664_SuppeChouHookGrowth.pdf

The point of this isn't a "well i think the sediment was soft" vs "I think the sediment was already solidified". The point here isn't about what we assume but what the rocks themselves tell us. The fact that water can't account for what we observe in the rocks is enough to rule out a flood as a possibility. There are signs all throughout the layers of strata that form the grand canyon that each layer was once at the surface (ie burrowing chambers). We do know what flood deposit looks like, it tends to have graded bedding, not alternating limestone and sandstone with definitive edges between the layers.

This is what I meant in the OP when I said I'd like specific evidence. Alluded to something general like "folded layers can only be made in a flood". I want to know why you think that. What do we know about flood deposits and the soft sediments that they produce that would make us think that we can fold soft layers in such way that they can maintain an even thickness as if they were solid when they folded?

What seems to have alluded the scientists is that in a catastrohic flood (such that water may be 2 km deep on what was dry land) the real geologic upheaval would come when these waters receeded. Now if this happened quickly like the earth crust collapsing over the voids from where the water came, there would be released mighty forces as mega tons of water raced to the sink holes. Much of the strata layering (as has been shown by tests)and subsequent erosion and formation forming would happen under these conditions .

 

[juvenissun]

Isn't it simpler to believe that the layers were put down by a massive flood and the erosion occurred when the massive amount of water receeded. A much more likely scenario, after all similar canyons occur all over the world.

Unfortunately it is not.

The main difference is on the strength of the material. Flood sediments are soft and could not be piled to that thickness.

 

[juvenissun]

That sounds too oversimplified. How thick a layer could be made in one million years of what material? Each layer is different and formed in a different way.

I'm also still wondering how old you think the earth is.

Your questions start to become redundant.

One million years could make sedimentary layers thick enough like what we see at the Grand Canyon. Some layers, such as sandstone, would take even much shorter time in the order or thousands of years.

So you want a number for the age of the earth. OK, how about 100 million years? Is that a young earth?

 

[Assyrian]

OK, how about 100 million years? Is that a young earth?

Sounds similar to Kelvin's estimate of between 20 million and 400 million years, and he was an Old Earth Creationist.

 

[philadiddle]

Much of the strata layering (as has been shown by tests)and subsequent erosion and formation forming would happen under these conditions .

Can you show me the tests?

 

[SkyWriting]

...Here's a simple explanation of they folded. This isn't a problem for geologists, creationists just pretend it is. Creation Science Rebuttals, Creation Magazine, The Truth about Plastic Deformation (folded rock layers)

Those Geologists are not scientists. They are science fiction storytellers.
The "answer man" makes clear that his folding theories cannot
be reproduced. So they are impossible to refute or retest.
Once again the romance of "long ages" creeps into the lab
and solves any scientific problem. Sorry.

I have a degree in Plastics Technology and know all about
heat, time, and folding of plastic materials. Real, actual, plastic
materials. And what I've seen with folded rock layers goes beyond
what ACTUAL plastic materials can do without fracturing.

Plus the "answer man" brushes aside the fact that much of these
folded rock layers are NOT known to have been deep in the sediment
layers under high heat and pressure. Some are not that old, and are
considered to be top layers, not exposed upthrust crust from the earth.

So some Creationists are simply disputing unsupported fairy tails written
by some geologists. And because they can simply call on father time
to explain away their inability to recreate any experiments, they are
actually not being scientists and following the scientific method.

Only those who are open to criticism are scientists. If they cannot
prove their theories with experiments that doubters can reproduce
then they are scientific frauds.

 

[philadiddle]

Those Geologists are not scientists. They are science fiction storytellers.
The "answer man" makes clear that his folding theories cannot
be reproduced. So they are impossible to refute or retest.
Once again the romance of "long ages" creeps into the lab
and solves any scientific problem. Sorry.

I have a degree in Plastics Technology and know all about
heat, time, and folding of plastic materials. Real, actual, plastic
materials. And what I've seen with folded rock layers goes beyond
what ACTUAL plastic materials can do without fracturing.

Plus the "answer man" brushes aside the fact that much of these
folded rock layers are NOT known to have been deep in the sediment
layers under high heat and pressure. Some are not that old, and are
considered to be top layers, not exposed upthrust crust from the earth.

So some Creationists are simply disputing unsupported fairy tails written
by some geologists. And because they can simply call on father time
to explain away their inability to recreate any experiments, they are
actually not being scientists and following the scientific method.

Only those who are open to criticism are scientists. If they cannot
prove their theories with experiments that doubters can reproduce
then they are scientific frauds.

It would be interesting to look in detail at one. How about you pick a very specific folded rock layer that has been studied, and together we'll look at what it's made of, what we know about the behavior of the sediment, and what evidence there is for folding while it was soft during a flood or folding after it was hardened.

 

[philadiddle]

Your questions start to become redundant.

One million years could make sedimentary layers thick enough like what we see at the Grand Canyon. Some layers, such as sandstone, would take even much shorter time in the order or thousands of years.

So you want a number for the age of the earth. OK, how about 100 million years? Is that a young earth?

No, 100 million years is an old earth. A young earth is usually 6,000-50,000 years old.

I post the following not to be rude, but to give you a chance to clarify things for me.

Back in the 1800s looking at how sediments formed gave an estimated age of the earth of hundreds of millions of years, which seems to be what you've done here. Since then other lines of evidence have extended that longer. You seem to be 150 years behind geology. The difference is, they didn't have our modern dating techniques, and you do. In fact, you started this whole conversation out by saying "if we ignore radiometric dating...".

So what's the point of going against the grain here? You want the age to be different than what scientists think, but you admit you have to ignore evidence to make it fit. Your view also doesn't fit young earth theology (as far as I can tell) so it seems to be a view that is unique to yourself. Maybe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing? What do you think happened during the 100 million years of earth's existence, did God create species along the way like progressive creationism? Or did you have something else in mind?

 

[TasManOfGod]

phil
I have noticed that you have done a flip to folded soft layers caused by flood to a flop to folded hard layers formed over millions of years. Do many of your scientific friends share this flip flop approach.
Perhaps the answer is that a flood did it but if the the strata contains multi million YO fossills then a flood didn't do it. Is that how it works

 

[TasManOfGod]

Unfortunately it is not.

The main difference is on the strength of the material. Flood sediments are soft and could not be piled to that thickness.

Correct -but the real strata formation would have occurred with the receeding flood waters where great forces would be involved.