Scientific proof of flood.

[gluadys]

Well how did the river stay in exsistence while the ocean was by it or over it, as in how the sand stone got there.

It didn't. The river is much younger than the rock it cuts through. The rock has to be built up first, then the river forms and cuts through it to form the canyon.

Is this to many questions.

Too many to answer in one post. What you really need is some introductory geology. Then follow that up with a history of the geology of the Grand Canyon in particular.

 

[notto]

From AIG:
The eroded strata consisted of rather soft sand and clay which was saturated by the recent rains. The dewatering of the saturated sediments into the now-open ditch enhanced the erosion. The rapidly moving water could dislodge the particles and carry them downstream, leaving underlying sediments vulnerable to further erosion. In total, these six days of runaway ditch erosion removed around 150,000 m3 (five million cubic ft) of silt, sand and rock.

Comparing this to the Grand Canyon or Bryce Canyon is apples and oranges.

 

[searchingforanswers1]

glen mortons work destroys the global flood story.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rivchan.htm
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10515874#post10515874

 

[duordi]

An so now I should post several YEC sites with an opposing view.

Ha. Ha.

But I have decided that the evidence of the flood is so prevalent that I do not need to use this method.

Besides I am not a YEC.

As a matter of fact the two pictures pasted on this thread were posted by evolutionists trying to prove there was not a flood, but the evidence is so prevalent that anything they selected proved the flood did occur.

The top fossil layer of the sedimentary rock in most of the canyon areas contains sea animals and even if they didn't, sedimentary rock is formed on ocean floors (under water).

Unless your willing to dump all the researched data on rock formation we have, your stuck.

So you can say the mountains were once below water, or the water was above the mountains.

In either case a flood is indicated.

The size of the waves required to form the rock formations indicates large waves and would not come from a small lake.

And even if they did the entire mountain range contain continuous sedimentary rock so lakes would have had to have been continuous everywhere.

It is hardly likely that the rock structures at the highest elevation points would survive the raise from the ocean to the present altitude as they area vary fragile.

This means they were formed where they are.

If the process took millions of years then the fragile structures would have very little detail and wind, rain and ice erosion would have reduced them to a rounded hill by now.

Having said this, I realize you may go back to some site with a strong biased to brainwash yourself.

But I have a challenge for you.

Almost all sites assume there is no flood.

Assumptions almost always prove themselves to be true in a logical process so you have the odds on your side.

Why don't you visit some "neutral" sites and try to get a semi realistic view of the evidence of how sedementary rock is formed and what its presents indicates.


Duane

 

[leccy]

Why don't you visit some "neutral" sites and try to get a semi realistic view of the evidence of how sedementary rock is formed and what its presents indicates.
Duane

Sorry but I think I'll take my own credentials and 20 years experience as a working geologist before I trust to your "neutral" websites. From your posts in this thread you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of how sedimentary rocks are formed, in what environments they are formed, by what processes they are formed and how they end up in the environment in which we now examine them.

 

[duordi]

P.S.

I did check out the forum site referenced.

The argument seems to be based on the assumption that no fossils formed before the flood?

"When showing this to one friend, he asked if the river could be a buried pre-flood river? It can't. Most young-earth creationists believe that all the fossils were formed during the flood. There are several thousand feet of fossiliferous sedimentary rocks beneath this river channel and 1,600 feet of fossiliferous sediment above the channel. If all the fossils were a result of the flood then the river channel must also have been deposited during that year."

So it would seem this is an argument intended for someone who believes there were no fossils before the flood.

I have no idea why someone would take this stand but then again I have not been given the reasoning for it.

Perhaps you should show this to a YEC.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Were your 20 years spent considering other views or only one?

Duane

 

[leccy]

P.S.

I did check out the forum site referenced.

The argument seems to be based on the assumption that no fossils formed before the flood?

"When showing this to one friend, he asked if the river could be a buried pre-flood river? It can't. Most young-earth creationists believe that all the fossils were formed during the flood. There are several thousand feet of fossiliferous sedimentary rocks beneath this river channel and 1,600 feet of fossiliferous sediment above the channel. If all the fossils were a result of the flood then the river channel must also have been deposited during that year."

So it would seem this is an argument intended for someone who believes there were no fossils before the flood.

I have no idea why someone would take this stand but then again I have not been given the reasoning for it.

Perhaps you should show this to a YEC.

Duane

Perhaps you could explain where the water came from to feed this pre-Flood river, given the YEC claim that there was no rain before the flood - did that particular river channel deposit originate from the mist that rose up and watered the plants for those first couple of thousand years?

 

[leccy]

Were your 20 years spent considering other views or only one?

Duane

No, those 20 years have been spent considering evidence and then making use of the scientific method to make predictions based on that evidence. Those predictions are incorporated into planning for further testing in the real world. The correctness, or otherwise, of those predictions determine where, how much and how best to develop fossil fuel resources.

Thousands of other geoscientists do the same thing in the various industrial and academic application of the geological sciences. Their work is put to the test every day, by the harsh spotlight of peer review in the case of publications and by the hard cash balance in the case of applied industrial applications. In making those predicitons we don't use models involving a global flood that were throroughly refuted a century and a half a go by (predominantly Christian) geologists working in the field.

In terms of views considered, geology, like any other science, is an arena of continuing developing knowledge. New information and new explanations for that information are continually developed and disseminated in a thriving environment of discovery. Concepts that were not even thought of half a century ago are nowadays extremely important to the development of the science and it's use to achieve real world results. Those concepts are developed by look at the data, by examining evidence and are not just pulled out of a hat. They are tested in their ability to make predictions against subsequent observations. That sort of dynamic and mobile understanding, with constant reference back to the evidence, is an anathema to those who would wish to go back to the superstitious claptrap represented by so-called Flood Geology and to pull ad-hoc explanations out of a hat and often contradictory, to cling to a faulty, refuted and non-viable model.

That you even have the nerve to make a statement that "sedimentary rocks are formed under water, at the bottom of oceans" and use that as evidence of a global flood as described in the Bible shows that the depth of your misunderstanding of the subject most likely exceeds the depth of those oceans.

 

[gluadys]

That you even have the nerve to make a statement that "sedimentary rocks are formed under water, at the bottom of oceans" and use that as evidence of a global flood as described in the Bible shows that the depth of your misunderstanding of the subject most likely exceeds the depth of those oceans.

Telling it like it is!

 

[duordi]

Good!
So your open minded, and have an excelent background.

Might you share with one you consider, has intelecuall abilities far infearior to your own how the vast amounts if sedementary rock formed which have been exposed in the grand canyon?

Duane

 

[duordi]

Well I can not speak for YEC because I am not YEC.

Gluyady has the same problem with being accused of being an athiest I believe.

The Bible does not say it didn't rain before the flood but only that it didn't rain while Adam was in the garden.
After Adam sinned, all bets are off.

Also rivers did exist even when Adam was in the garden, they were spring fed and ran out of the garden to water specific areas as are defined in Geneses.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Sorry but I think I'll take my own credentials and 20 years experience as a working geologist before I trust to your "neutral" websites. From your posts in this thread you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of how sedimentary rocks are formed, in what environments they are formed, by what processes they are formed and how they end up in the environment in which we now examine them.

I did not say which sites to use.

So why are you critizing me for their content?

Duane

 

[leccy]

Good!
So your open minded, and have an excelent background.

Might you share with one you consider, has intelecuall abilities far infearior to your own how the vast amounts if sedementary rock formed which have been exposed in the grand canyon?

Duane

Over a vast period of time, in a number of geographic locations on the surface of the Earth, representing a large number of different depositional environments, different climatic conditions and encompassing a considerable portion of Earth history.

BTW nobody said anything about intellectual abilities whatsoever. My posts referred to the matter of experience and knowledge, not intellectual ability.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

I went to answersingenesis to see this canyon. The canyon resulted from high velocity and high pressure water being focused down a certain irrigation pathway. When something is flooded over, the water is not going to be focused like this was. It isn't going to be shooting at a high velocity and pressure down a set path.

This canyon would not have been made without the assistance of MEN. If MEN had not diverted the water flow due to unusually high spring rains, as AiG says, then the canyon would not have been formed.

How weak is this comback. Yes it went down the ditch at high rates, but it was not a forced rate by any man made anything it was because of the build up of water. it released and since the land was sofened by the rains the weak spots got washed away. Now if water was held by a lake ubove where the grand canyon is and the natural dam broke it would release just the same. the lose soil,being that it was under water for a while, would be swept away in the weakest spots. The assistance of man is a weak accuse for the obviouse result.

 

[searchingforanswers1]

How weak is this comback. Yes it went down the ditch at high rates, but it was not a forced rate by any man made anything it was because of the build up of water. it released and since the land was sofened by the rains the weak spots got washed away. Now if water was held by a lake ubove where the grand canyon is and the natural dam broke it would release just the same. the lose soil,being that it was under water for a while, would be swept away in the weakest spots. The assistance of man is a weak accuse for the obviouse result.

http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/gallery/goose002.htm
look at this picture.if a lake had burst and caused high water pressure you would not have winding river channels like this. the channel would be straight. forming a channel like this takes slower water and much time.

 

[duordi]

Over a vast period of time, in a number of geographic locations on the surface of the Earth, representing a large number of different depositional environments, different climatic conditions and encompassing a considerable portion of Earth history.

BTW nobody said anything about intellectual abilities whatsoever. My posts referred to the matter of experience and knowledge, not intellectual ability.

I undersand you are saying that they were not created all at once.

Did they form under water or out of water?

Duane

 

[leccy]

I undersand you are saying that they were not created all at once.

Did they form under water or out of water?

Duane

Both.

Here is a link showing the various geological layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and the environments represented

http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm#ts


They include marine clastic deposts, such as sandstones, mudstones, claystones, shales and marine carbonate deposits, in the form of limestones and represent deposition in a variety of marine and marginal marine environments, including shelf deposits and river delta deposits as well as the bioclastic (means made up of fossils) limestones. The Coconino Sandstones are different and record deposition in a sub-aerial environment (meaning not underwater) as sand dunes, just like you would find in modern desert. These have tracks and trails of land-dwelling animals in them and lack the marine fossils that are seen in some of the other formations.

Leccy

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Both.

Here is a link showing the various geological layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and the environments represented

http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm#ts


They include marine clastic deposts, such as sandstones, mudstones, claystones, shales and marine carbonate deposits, in the form of limestones and represent deposition in a variety of marine and marginal marine environments, including shelf deposits and river delta deposits as well as the bioclastic (means made up of fossils) limestones. The Coconino Sandstones are different and record deposition in a sub-aerial environment (meaning not underwater) as sand dunes, just like you would find in modern desert. These have tracks and trails of land-dwelling animals in them and lack the marine fossils that are seen in some of the other formations.

Leccy

So how long did it take to carve the grand canyon by the river.

 

[duordi]

Both.

Here is a link showing the various geological layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and the environments represented

http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm#ts


They include marine clastic deposts, such as sandstones, mudstones, claystones, shales and marine carbonate deposits, in the form of limestones and represent deposition in a variety of marine and marginal marine environments, including shelf deposits and river delta deposits as well as the bioclastic (means made up of fossils) limestones. The Coconino Sandstones are different and record deposition in a sub-aerial environment (meaning not underwater) as sand dunes, just like you would find in modern desert. These have tracks and trails of land-dwelling animals in them and lack the marine fossils that are seen in some of the other formations.

Leccy

Thank you for the information.

I can see now why YEC put all of the layers as a recient development.

I have often wondered what would happen if you put billion year old rocks into a layer with new fossils.

It would make for some interesting dates would it not?

I was not able to identify the arid layers you refered to.

They all seem to have water fossil or water evidence of some kind.

Can you point out the arid layers?

Duane