Scientific proof of flood.

[notto]

There is only one way that sediment can be laid down to thicknesses of hundreds of feet and then that same sediment gets eroded by the same water that layed it as it receeds - and that is by a global flood
Think about it

Yet A4C has in the past concluded that the sediment that forms coal seams that has dinosaur footprints in it was formed pre-flood. I guess there are other ways fo hundreds of feet of sediment to be laid down.

 

[A4C]

why is it "the same water"?

Well first of all it is the only occasion where the flood level would be above the highest layer of the sediment.
Secondly it would be still wet then and easily eroded by the "one shot" receeding water

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well first of all it is the only occasion where the flood level would be above the highest layer of the sediment.
Secondly it would be still wet then and easily eroded by the "one shot" receeding water

What you are saying is that if they were deposited by the flood they must have been eroded by the same water. Since the sedimentary layers of the Colorado Plateau weren't deposited by a global flood they weren't eroded by the "same water" so your entire circular argument is refuted. In fact your argument refutes itself since layers that were still wet" would not support 5000 foot shear cliffs.

FB

 

[A4C]

What you are saying is that if they were deposited by the flood they must have been eroded by the same water. Since the sedimentary layers of the Colorado Plateau weren't deposited by a global flood they weren't eroded by the "same water" so your entire circular argument is refuted. In fact your argument refutes itself since layers that were still wet" would not support 5000 foot shear cliffs.

FB

What makes you so sure that the sedimentary layers of the Colarado Plateau weren't deposited by a global flood?
5000 foot shear cliffs were indeed formed by the fact that the wet sediment "collapsed" thus forming the sheer cliffs.
Actually there is no circular reasoning at all -absolutely linear

 

[notto]

Well first of all it is the only occasion where the flood level would be above the highest layer of the sediment.
Secondly it would be still wet then and easily eroded by the "one shot" receeding water

Since A4C has me on ignore somebody should ask him to explain why we have conglomerate rocks in the runnoff of the erosion of the grand canyon if it was eroded when it was 'wet'. A mechansim for how the exposed cliff walls turned to rock was also not forthcoming.

He ignored this little bit last time he brought up the grand canyon (and the time before that).

 

[Numenor]

Allow me.

Since A4C has me on ignore somebody should ask him to explain why we have conglomerate rocks in the runnoff of the erosion of the grand canyon if it was eroded when it was 'wet'. A mechansim for how the exposed cliff walls turned to rock was also not forthcoming.

He ignored this little bit last time he brought up the grand canyon (and the time before that).

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What makes you so sure that the sedimentary layers of the Colarado Plateau weren't deposited by a global flood?
5000 foot shear cliffs were indeed formed by the fact that the wet sediment "collapsed" thus forming the sheer cliffs.
Actually there is no circular reasoning at all -absolutely linear

I don't have time to go into the all details right now. I have studied Grand Canyon Geology and the details including the variety of complex and varied sedimentary lithologies, the presences of trace fossils such as burrows in some layers and animals tracks in others and many other feature falsify flood deposition. John Woolf gives a description of the major layers HERE. The Grand Canyon Supergroup is a very complex formation which has undergone a lot of faulting a metamorphosis. Most YECs call these rocks and the underlying Vishnu Schists preflood but they never explain how this complex of folded sedimentary and metamorphic rocks formed preflood. They never explain the great unconformity between the Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks. They never explain how the Grand Wash Dolomites were deposited by a flood and they never really explain the trace fossils of the specific order and nature of the fossils and trace fossils in the Canyon.

The tensile and compresive strength of recently deposited "wet sediments" is not enough to support the kind of sheer cliffs seen at the canyon. It is all explained in the web pages I linked and we have been over it before of this board but I am sure that you must ignore the geological data to preserve your mythology. Go right ahead but I encourge anyone whose mind is not already made up to read the web pages I linked and to study the real geology of the Grand Canyon and not YEC nonsense.

YECs often come up with handwaving "explanations" for specific features of the earth's geology but they always fail in many areas. They have no coherent explanation for the overall geology of the earth, they can't even agree which layers are flood layers and which aren't. YEC explanations always flop when the true details of the geology are discussed.

FB

 

[duordi]

The site you gave us verifies this. It shows that the age of the rocks is from before and after the irridium layer. Guess where that means they were found.

Your own reference site conflicts with your conclusions.

The site gives dates based on a non-catastrophic dating system.

To test a catastrophic condition you must use a different approach.

It is actually easier. All that needs to be done is compare the elevation of the iridium layer to the elevation of the creator.

Also remember that not all of the creators were from one event and will be random in time and placement on the planet.

I am assuming that you are truly interested in understanding catastrophic Earth history.


Duane

 

[Tomk80]

The site gives dates based on a non-catastrophic dating system.

To test a catastrophic condition you must use a different approach.

It is actually easier. All that needs to be done is compare the elevation of the iridium layer to the elevation of the creator.

Also remember that not all of the creators were from one event and will be random in time and placement on the planet.

I am assuming that you are truly interested in understanding catastrophic Earth history.


Duane

If you do that, aren't you ignoring things like erosion and uplift?

 

[duordi]

This is total gibberish as far as I can see, not even a good try. As with so many YECs, what you think is evidence for the global flood actually shows that it didn't occur.

FB

Actually I am a YBC ( Young Bilogical Earth Theory ).
I am used to the confusion as it is a common assumtion on this site.

There are as many different ideas on my side of the fence as there is on yours.

I didn't follow your logic on the rest of the post.
Perhaps you could be more specific.

Duane

 

[TheBear]

If this was the result of a global flood, the Grand Canyon should be rich with fossils of animals and plants not indigenous to North America. I haven't found any yet. Have you?

An interesting thought.
What chain of events would bring this about?

Duane

A global flood?

Still waiting for a reply to this 'interesting thought'.

 

[duordi]

A global flood?

Why would I expect a global flood to take animals from Africa and form fossils in North America.

Fossils only form when something is quick buried.

Things that float around for awhile would not make fossils but be digested by bacteria and erosion.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Still waiting for a reply to this 'interesting thought'.

Sorry for the delay.

See 12:21 today above

Duane

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Why would I expect a global flood to take animals from Africa and form fossils in North America.

Fossils only form when something is quick buried.

Things that float around for awhile would not make fossils but be digested by bacteria and erosion.

Duane

Because YECs claim there was only one continent before the flood and all the animals lived on it. In any case if massive flood waters swept over the area depositing all these sediments we would expect to see some body fossils of land animals and some of more modern marine animals distributed throughout the canyon layers. Instead the fossils in the various layers are exactly what one would expect if they were laid down during the various geological eras in which mainstream geology says they were laid down.

FB

 

[notto]

The site gives dates based on a non-catastrophic dating system.

To test a catastrophic condition you must use a different approach.

It is actually easier. All that needs to be done is compare the elevation of the iridium layer to the elevation of the creator.

Also remember that not all of the creators were from one event and will be random in time and placement on the planet.

I am assuming that you are truly interested in understanding catastrophic Earth history.


Duane

So if we translate the 'non-catastrophic' dating data to your model, we can still determine which ones came before the iridium layer because in the mainstream model, they would be dated before it. Likewise for the ones after it, they would be dated more recently.

Care to tell us what type of pattern we should see that would support your model?

You seem to conclude that they are not all from the same event and some happened before the iridium layer (pre flood by your model) and some after.

Basically, they show nothing of your model and show no relationship to the flood that they supposedly are evidence for.

From the site you sent us to, what ones are pre flood and what ones are post flood? How do you know?

 

[TheBear]

1: Why would I expect a global flood to take animals from Africa and form fossils in North America.

2: Fossils only form when something is quick buried.

3: Things that float around for awhile would not make fossils but be digested by bacteria and erosion.

Duane

1) When water is rapidly rising across the earth, (to over 29,000 feet above sea level), and when great surges of water are bursting forth from underground, and when there's a massive deluge from 'windows' in the sky, any rational person would conclude that dead animals, plants and debris would have been scattered everywhere.
(Of course, if you're really dug in to your position without any possibility of re-thinking it or changing your view, it doesn't matter what any rational person concludes. Your mind is made up. )

2) That's not true. Study up on the subject.

3) Study up on Fossils 101. At least learn the basics.

 

[duordi]

You are confusing YEC pseudo-geology with real geology. There were large flows down the Colorado after the breaching of lava dams several times in the last few hundred thousand years but there is no evidence of a giant lake anywhere. That is a figment of Steve Austin's imagination.

So you agree that the Colorado river could not have formed the grand canyon without a large water flow. The specifics are unimportant to the point and I will accept the concession.

Geologist understand that catastrophic processes occasionally occur. When they do they leave evidence. There is no evidence of a global flood.

It is a myth that trilobites were especially heavy. Their fossils are heavy because they are made of solid rocks but many trilobites were free swimming organisms and they lived in every marine ecological niche.

Like at the bottom of a lake where they could be easily buried and make excellent fossils.

You see its not only where were they but where were they that would have been most often preserved.

Somehow none of the flying repitles made these flight I guess those intellegent, flying mangrove trees and fast running grasses were able to outrace the velocirators to high ground as well

What would you call a bat?

The point was high ground is not where you would have the best chance of finding fossils.

What? Ocean levels were lower during the ice ages and are rising now. What does this have to do with a worldwide flood?

where do you get this nonsense?

Very interesting that you have concluded that humans ( and the cities they built ) existed before or during the ice ages.

So do I.

I am sure you will change your mind when you find out the dates you are suppose to believe.

The under water cities are dated at 8000 years or less by non-catastrophic dating methods.

But for now we agree.

The Noth Pole is in the Artic Ocean. Maybe you mean the South Pole. Did you ever hear of continental drift?

The centennial drift idea would place winter climate fossils at the equator along with tropical fossils at the poles.
Winter climate fossils have not been found at the equator, so large movements of the continents is not a possibility.

Who said they did? There have been many ice ages and many warmer periods in earth's long history.

Actually there is evidence of many catastrophic events in earth's history but no evidence of a global flood.

Thank you, if you accept the catastrophic evidence you are one step closer.

The catastrophic evidence IS the evidence of a global flood when it is found on a mountain peak as in the picture in the starting post on this thread.

I have previously pointed out that there are too many meteor strikes and massive volcanic eruptions known to fit in the Young Earth/Global flood scenario. Thanks for bring this falsfication of YEC mythology up again.

This of course is only true if the meteor striks are random.

If we had an encounter with one large object which either broke up or was composed of several objects to begin with then a global flood and iceages are a expected result.

Actually there have been many ice ages during the last billion years of earth's history providing yet another falsification of your young earth mythology.

You could say that modern geologists are actualists rather than strict uniformitarians if you actually knew what you were talking about.

They are not too complicated if you are willing to study a little actual geology and not simplistic YEC pseudo geology.

Indeed they are not.

As soon as one looks at the base assumptions and realizes that the base assumptions can not be true it is understandable why the accepted dates are questioned by well informed intelligent people.

It is not my intent to say the much of what is given is not good information, however we must be careful not to forget how we have arrived to a specific conclusion and not deem the theory as some kind of inspired unchangeable truth.
To do so would define one as a religious fanatic which unfortunately neither side of the argument is immune to.

I must complement you on your reasoning.
It both challenging and enjoyable.

Duane

 

[duordi]

For the few who follow this endeavor.

Insults do not impress or convince, and take little intelligence or effort.
With so many interesting and unexplored topics in this subject why waste time using them as it shows an illogical emotional thought process which is of course would also be unreliable.

I am going camping for a few days to explore an interesting world.

Have fun while I’m gone.

Duane

 

[TheBear]

For the few who follow this endeavor.

Insults do not impress or convince, and take little intelligence or effort.
With so many interesting and unexplored topics in this subject why waste time using them as it shows an illogical emotional thought process which is of course would also be unreliable.

I am going camping for a few days to explore an interesting world.

Have fun while I’m gone.

Duane

And don't forget, kids......

Sanctimonious posts like this, which is an off-topic ad hominem, is used to somehow garner support and earn points, by attacking the person, and therfore discrediting what the person has to say.


So, let's start fresh.


To duordi -

My original question was, why don't we see non-indigenous plant or animal fossils in the Grand Canyon?

 

[TheBear]

Also to duordi -

Enjoy the camping trip. Sounds fun!