• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Flood

Status
Not open for further replies.

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Gosh all, I'm sad we didn't stay on the geology of the Grand Canyon. I'm no expert on it but it sure is fun to learn more about it.

Take for instance the Muave Limestone

grandcanyon_strat.jpg


It's down near the bottom. Now what's apparently really cool about the Muav Ls is that it has deep channels that were carved in the TOP OF IT! Little minicanyons if you will! Interesting. Because that means it was at least consolidated enough to be erodable. But then these were filled in with freshwater limestone!

History within history.

Also note that no rocks that can reasonably be interpretted to have been from the Ordovician or Silurian are seen in the geologic column. Hmmm, either they weren't deposited or they were eroded away.

Either way, no matter what you think about how the layers of the canyon formed, you have to wonder why rocks that would be present elsewhere in the world indicating either a type of animal population or another identifiable marker, simply didn't get deposited here.

Further up the column they find stuff in the Supai Group that can be traced back to the Ancestral Rocky Mountains! So these mountains (which existed before the current Rocky Mountains) formed, eroded and their detritus was accumulated in a shallow sea to the west, all before any Canyon building stuff happened. And the Ancestral Rockies were probably Precambrian metamorphic rockswhich means eroding them may not have been a "fast job". But I don't know for sure what their mineralogy was.

Remember Steno's Law of "Cross Cutting Relationships" which essentially tells you if you have a feature and some other feature (like a giant canyon or gash) cuts across that feature the feature being cut was there FIRST!

Wow, the levels of history are stunning.

Keep going up and you see the HERMIT SHALE. This was laid down by freshwater streams and has fossils of winged insects and ferns in it! On top of that we have a full-on dune deposit as discussed earlier.

The formation above that, the Toroweap Fm has interbeds of gypsum. Gypsum forms when water that is very saline is allowed to stand and evaporate to the point where there is so much Ca and sulfate in the water that it dumps out gypsum.

So you go from a freshwater stream type environment to a desert to a shallow sea, then another formation, the Kaibab, that marks more sea deposition,

But what I DON'T see is the evidence of a world-altering high energy super massive flood or evidence of the fountains of the deep erupting or a giant flux of water that suddenly swept in to deposit all this. What we do see are numerous instances of ocean and land and shallow calm seas and fresh water cutting down through the ground, and more seas and more land.

Just like we see happening today all over the planet.

Can someone please point out where the Flood happened in the stratigraphy?

It's pretty simply laid out there, let's find the Flood layer, shall we?

To the Original Poster: Please point out where the flood happened or explain how a single flood lasting a year deposited, lithified and then cut through so many differing deposits all in a nice package.
 
Upvote 0

Avatar

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 26, 2004
549,102
56,600
Cape Breton
✟740,518.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Gosh all, I'm sad we didn't stay on the geology of the Grand Canyon. I'm no expert on it but it sure is fun to learn more about it.

Take for instance the Muave Limestone

grandcanyon_strat.jpg


It's down near the bottom. Now what's apparently really cool about the Muav Ls is that it has deep channels that were carved in the TOP OF IT! Little minicanyons if you will! Interesting. Because that means it was at least consolidated enough to be erodable. But then these were filled in with freshwater limestone!

History within history.

Also note that no rocks that can reasonably be interpretted to have been from the Ordovician or Silurian are seen in the geologic column. Hmmm, either they weren't deposited or they were eroded away.

Either way, no matter what you think about how the layers of the canyon formed, you have to wonder why rocks that would be present elsewhere in the world indicating either a type of animal population or another identifiable marker, simply didn't get deposited here.

Further up the column they find stuff in the Supai Group that can be traced back to the Ancestral Rocky Mountains! So these mountains (which existed before the current Rocky Mountains) formed, eroded and their detritus was accumulated in a shallow sea to the west, all before any Canyon building stuff happened. And the Ancestral Rockies were probably Precambrian metamorphic rockswhich means eroding them may not have been a "fast job". But I don't know for sure what their mineralogy was.

Remember Steno's Law of "Cross Cutting Relationships" which essentially tells you if you have a feature and some other feature (like a giant canyon or gash) cuts across that feature the feature being cut was there FIRST!

Wow, the levels of history are stunning.

Keep going up and you see the HERMIT SHALE. This was laid down by freshwater streams and has fossils of winged insects and ferns in it! On top of that we have a full-on dune deposit as discussed earlier.

The formation above that, the Toroweap Fm has interbeds of gypsum. Gypsum forms when water that is very saline is allowed to stand and evaporate to the point where there is so much Ca and sulfate in the water that it dumps out gypsum.

So you go from a freshwater stream type environment to a desert to a shallow sea, then another formation, the Kaibab, that marks more sea deposition,

But what I DON'T see is the evidence of a world-altering high energy super massive flood or evidence of the fountains of the deep erupting or a giant flux of water that suddenly swept in to deposit all this. What we do see are numerous instances of ocean and land and shallow calm seas and fresh water cutting down through the ground, and more seas and more land.

Just like we see happening today all over the planet.

Can someone please point out where the Flood happened in the stratigraphy?

It's pretty simply laid out there, let's find the Flood layer, shall we?

To the Original Poster: Please point out where the flood happened or explain how a single flood lasting a year deposited, lithified and then cut through so many differing deposits all in a nice package.
That's all well and good but what are you really trying to say?

Admit it, you want a hug. I know you do.

From me to you - :hug:
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,289
52,674
Guam
✟5,163,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Can someone please point out where the Flood happened in the stratigraphy?

It's pretty simply laid out there, let's find the Flood layer, shall we?

Um ... what's that layer there right smack-dab in the middle of the Tonto Group?

Bright what Shale?
 
Upvote 0

Vene

In memory of ChordatesLegacy
Oct 20, 2007
4,155
319
Michigan
✟28,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
thaumaturgy said:
To the Original Poster: Please point out where the flood happened or explain how a single flood lasting a year deposited, lithified and then cut through so many differing deposits all in a nice package.


I'm the OP and I set this up specifically to show that the concept of a worldwide flood was wrong. I still forgive you though.:p
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Proof the flood happened? Hmmmmm. Oh, got it. Fish fossils on mountains! Oh, yeah. lol
Actually, that is more evidence that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. Mountains 'grow', over millions of years. At one point, those same fish fossils were in a sea bed/lake bed.

If there was a global flood, we would expect to find a huge aggregate of animal and plant fossils, (land animals and plants too), in the same layers. Finding fish fossils in mountains, supports an array of earth science theories, but buy itself, it does not support a global flood.
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Um ... what's that layer there right smack-dab in the middle of the Tonto Group?

Bright what Shale?

Congrats AV, you are the first creationist to ever label a single unit as the flood deposit on these boards.

There is a good reason why creationists don't usually do this as you will probably find out in the next page or so, it is to do with the fact that the Bright shale doesn't cover the whole world and it will be dateable.

Also shales don't get deposited in high energy environments and have grain sizes that re less than 0.0625mm.

Have another go it is like a lucky dip
 
Upvote 0

LeeC

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2007
821
30
✟23,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think that all the animals with their sub-species didn't board the Ark.

Only their "kind" did.


So we have evolution to explain all the different animals alive today... excellent stuff. Not enough time according to the bible dates, but at least you like the sound of evolution when it suits you.

Another question: What did the animals eat when they got off the ark (after nearly a year was it?)

A global flood, covering the highest mountain, would have killed all the plant life... plants take time to grow back.

Plus, if the tiger ate a Zebra (just after they got off the ark so they are in the same place) then no more zebra - it is extinct. (Worse still in your example of merely sub-species... it could be no more horses if only a sub-set of animals were taken.)



So we have evolution to explain all the different animals alive today... excellent stuff. Not enough time according to the bible dates, but at least you like the sound of evolution when it suits you.

Another question: What did the animals eat when they got off the ark (after nearly a year was it?)

A global flood, covering the highest mountain, would have killed all the plant life... and plants take time to grow back (if they could survive 12 months miles under sea water).

Plus, if the tiger ate a Zebra (just after they got off the ark so they are in the same country) then no more zebra - it is extinct – only 2 of every kind. (Worse still in your example of merely sub-species... it could be no more horses if only a sub-set of animals were taken.)

How did Noah get ALL the animals on Earth in such a short space of time onto the ark? And why doesn’t the bible tell us how the animals got back to their original country?

One last thing… why do other cultures write of a flood (and NOT mention Noah) Since according to the bible it was ONLY Noah and his family that were saved?

Maybe the story was based on a major flood a long time ago, but man just added to the tale to make god sound BIG!

Just a thought.

Lee
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
[/i][/b]I'm the OP and I set this up specifically to show that the concept of a worldwide flood was wrong. I still forgive you though.:p

My bad! Please accept my apologies. (I keep thinking Little Nipper or someone will point to the strata).

-Mea Culpa.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,289
52,674
Guam
✟5,163,766.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
...but at least you like the sound of evolution when it suits you.


You must have me mixed up with someone else.

Another question: What did the animals eat when they got off the ark (after nearly a year was it?)

It was a year and ten days, and I don't know what they ate. I'm sure God took care of all the side issues. Even in the wilderness, God fed the Israelites with manna. It surely wouldn't be out of His league to have done something for the animals.

A global flood, covering the highest mountain, would have killed all the plant life... plants take time to grow back.

They sure do.

Plus, if the tiger ate a Zebra (just after they got off the ark so they are in the same place) then no more zebra - it is extinct. (Worse still in your example of merely sub-species... it could be no more horses if only a sub-set of animals were taken.)

I'm sure it wasn't a zoological free-for-all when the animals disembarked. Tigers wouldn't have dinner in mind. Have you ever seen animals running from a wildfire? They don't stop to eat each other. (I didn't say sub-species got on the Ark, I said their "kind" got on the Ark.)

How did Noah get ALL the animals on Earth in such a short space of time onto the ark?


God handled the roll call.

And why doesn’t the bible tell us how the animals got back to their original country?

Because the emphasis isn't on plants and animals, it's on Noah. Just how big do you want the Bible to be, anyway?

One last thing… why do other cultures write of a flood (and NOT mention Noah) Since according to the bible it was ONLY Noah and his family that were saved?


Because they drowned before they had a chance to write about it? And the cultures that came afterward didn't know what happened, except what was written in the Scriptures, or told to them by someone?

Maybe the story was based on a major flood a long time ago, but man just added to the tale to make god sound BIG!


Or it happened?
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Let's look at the Bright Angel Shale:

It is shale unit with mudstone, siltstone and some interbeds of sandstone and sandy limestone. It has fossils of brachiopods and trilobites. Both of these are extinct now. It is Middle Cambrian in age.
(SOURCE)

Interestingly enough what we see in the Bright Angel Shale and the rocks above and below it may be interpretted as a classic transgressive sequence.
cambrian.jpg

(Source: http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/2005/lakemead/images/cambrian.jpg)

Looking at this cartoon from LEFT to RIGHT, if cut a band straight across we can see that the rocks are limestones to the far LEFT (blue bricks), shale in the middle and sandstone to the far RIGHT (yellow), these are called facies.

If you cut the column up and down you'll see it goes sandstone on the bottom, shale middle and limestone on top. That's because as the sea covers the land the deep water stuff (the shale and limestone) cover over what used to be the shallow stuff.

OK, so how does this help the debate?

Well, remember, this is down near the lower portions of the column.
grandcanyon_strat.jpg


ABOVE this is the Coconino sandstone we discussed earlier, which is LIKELY A DESERT DUNE-DEPOSIT. Dry land. But it, itself, is covered by MORE OCEANIC DEPOSITS.

So if the Bright Angel is a "flood" deposit, what about the Toroweap formation? Is it not a flood deposit? How many different "Global Floods" were there?

But more importantly: if one is THE Flood, how do you differentiate THE FLOOD deposit from the variety of OTHER FLOOD deposits available?
 
Upvote 0

BeamMeUpScotty

Senior Veteran
Dec 15, 2004
2,384
167
56
Kanagawa, Japan
✟25,937.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
You must have me mixed up with someone else.

[/color]

It was a year and ten days, and I don't know what they ate. I'm sure God took care of all the side issues. Even in the wilderness, God fed the Israelites with manna. It surely wouldn't be out of His league to have done something for the animals.



They sure do.



I'm sure it wasn't a zoological free-for-all when the animals disembarked. Tigers wouldn't have dinner in mind. Have you ever seen animals running from a wildfire? They don't stop to eat each other. (I didn't say sub-species got on the Ark, I said their "kind" got on the Ark.)



God handled the roll call.

[/color]

Because the emphasis isn't on plants and animals, it's on Noah. Just how big do you want the Bible to be, anyway?



Because they drowned before they had a chance to write about it? And the cultures that came afterward didn't know what happened, except what was written in the Scriptures, or told to them by someone?

[/color]

Or it happened?[/color]

So basically, and I mean this respectfully, you believe God performs millions of miracles to make the ark happen. That's fine, but then don't try to argue the ark in naturalistic (i.e., no need for a god) terms.

There are just way too many holes in the story for it to have been done through completely natural terms (see Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe for probably one of the most ambitious attempts at this, and also one of the most ridiculous. You can see a bit of a debate on it here.)
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
79
Visit site
✟30,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
Let's look at the Bright Angel Shale:

It is shale unit with mudstone, siltstone and some interbeds of sandstone and sandy limestone. It has fossils of brachiopods and trilobites. Both of these are extinct now. It is Middle Cambrian in age.
(SOURCE)

Interestingly enough what we see in the Bright Angel Shale and the rocks above and below it may be interpretted as a classic transgressive sequence.

(Source: http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/2005/lakemead/images/cambrian.jpg)

Looking at this cartoon from LEFT to RIGHT, if cut a band straight across we can see that the rocks are limestones to the far LEFT (blue bricks), shale in the middle and sandstone to the far RIGHT (yellow), these are called facies.

If you cut the column up and down you'll see it goes sandstone on the bottom, shale middle and limestone on top. That's because as the sea covers the land the deep water stuff (the shale and limestone) cover over what used to be the shallow stuff.

OK, so how does this help the debate?

Well, remember, this is down near the lower portions of the column.


ABOVE this is the Coconino sandstone we discussed earlier, which is LIKELY A DESERT DUNE-DEPOSIT. Dry land. But it, itself, is covered by MORE OCEANIC DEPOSITS.

So if the Bright Angel is a "flood" deposit, what about the Toroweap formation? Is it not a flood deposit? How many different "Global Floods" were there?

But more importantly: if one is THE Flood, how do you differentiate THE FLOOD deposit from the variety of OTHER FLOOD deposits available?
Thaumatury,

Since you have developed such an interest in the Grand Canyon lately I thought I would point out that there is a great book on the Grand Canyon called Grand Canyon Geology by Stanley Beus and Michael Morales. The latest addition was published in 2002. I got a paper back copy from Amazon for about 40 bucks but I see only the hardbound copy is available now. You might try your local geology library. The book is a collection of scholarly articles on every layer of the Grand Canyon. The chapters on the Grand Canyon supergroup are particularly interesting as the supergroup reveals a very complex geological history. I am on the road right now so I don't have access to it but one thing you see is that many of the main strata have there own substrata and may show several types of sequences indicating variations in the depositional environment, sometimes with erosive events interupting the deosition sequence. I don't see how anyone could read through Grand Canyon Geology and not conclude that the rock strata of the canyon were deposited over deep time.

F.B.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Thaumatury,

Since you have developed such an interest in the Grand Canyon lately I thought I would point out that there is a great book on the Grand Canyon called Grand Canyon Geology by Stanley Beus and Michael Morales. The latest addition was published in 2002. I got a paper back copy from Amazon for about 40 bucks but I see only the hardbound copy is available now. You might try your local geology library. The book is a collection of scholarly articles on every layer of the Grand Canyon. The chapters on the Grand Canyon supergroup are particularly interesting as the supergroup reveals a very complex geological history. I am on the road right now so I don't have access to it but one thing you see is that many of the main strata have there own substrata and may show several types of sequences indicating variations in the depositional environment, sometimes with erosive events interupting the deosition sequence. I don't see how anyone could read through Grand Canyon Geology and not conclude that the rock strata of the canyon were deposited over deep time.

F.B.

FB,
Thanks! I'll look into it. When you are back at your pc, post anything you've got for this discussion.

The Grand Canyon is such a good "teaching base" for so many topics in sedimentology and stratigraphy that this is a great jumping off point.
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
79
Visit site
✟30,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
It is very clear from study of the data that the sediments of the Colorado Plateau were deposited over great periods of time and not by a global flood. The idea that canyon itself was carved by either the global flood as some YECs claim or by a post flood "catastrophe" as Austin claims is also easy to falsify. It is not possible to carve soft recently deposited sediments into steep cliffs thousands of feet high and floods simply do not carve structures like Horseshow bend which is upstream from Grand Canyon National Park.
ARZ1-Clrd-Horseshoe.jpg
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It is very clear from study of the data that the sediments of the Colorado Plateau were deposited over great periods of time and not by a global flood. The idea that canyon itself was carved by either the global flood as some YECs claim or by a post flood "catastrophe" as Austin claims is also easy to falsify. It is not possible to carve soft recently deposited sediments into steep cliffs thousands of feet high and floods simply do not carve structures like Horseshow bend which is upstream from Grand Canyon National Park.
ARZ1-Clrd-Horseshoe.jpg

Nice pic!

This structure is very unique to rivers. It's called a Meander.
alluvial_stream.jpg


These form over time. A river generally starts off straight-ish and any bends in the river tend to be more eroded on the outside of the bend, which tends to cause the river to "migrate" to the side of the bow.
meander.gif

Over time you get these extreme bends in the river.

In the case of the Colorado Plateau, as it was uplifted the river kept cutting down. The river "wants" to be down at a lower energy position which is sea level (or more technically base level, which may be above sea level but is a position of energy minimum for the area).

Noteworth in the Horseshoe bend is how it cuts down through all these rock layers. A river on top of ocean-deposited rocks on top of desert dunes, on top of stream-deposited rocks on top of ocean-deposited rocks, etc etc. Back into time.

Again, hopefully the YEC's can see the vast expanse of time necessary to do stuff.

And hopefully they see that the earth's history is a lot more involved than simply "Nice weather, big flood, and then today"

We see so much history in a one mile deep gash of the crust, imagine what you see when you see the entirety of the planet and the entirety of the depth of the crust?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.