The Flood

[Joman]

Where is the geologist that knows how sediments were laid down?

White cliffs of Dover.
High purity.
Not comparable to any present day ocean bottom enviroment.
Much, much, much thicker than any present day ocean bottom.
Only exists locally.
Not a global deposit as it must be to qualify as a ancient ocean bottom.
Purer that any present day ocean bottom enviroment will allow over any extended time period.
Not below sea level.

The truth of there having been a global flood requires a global view not a locale view. Small local views are anomalistic due to the complexity of the global flood's underwater envieroments.
There aren't any water formed geologic formations that water during the global flood couldn't have made. The difference will manifest itself in the size and fit to the global picture.
The deceived geologists use eons of time as an excuse and a specious explaination for deposition.
Which I have already refuted with out a rebuttal from your resident goalshifting geologist.

The hair pin turns were formed by temporary water courses during the abation stage of the global flood.
When you take a more distant view of the canyons you will see that in the distance are the remnant outlines of the water courses at an earlier stage of the abation. As the water decreased in volume the courses narrowed within the larger outline. It really is quite obvious when you look and think for yourself.

Rapid flow rate changes and water course changes easily explain may sedimentary anomalies which eons of time can't.
Erosion events that remove strata completely while retaining layers above and below is easily explained by a change in flow direction and changes in flow rate. And, will be evidenced by the larger terrain view of the layer. Some of which has been done already.
It is evidenced by particle size analysis.

It is obvious that the Grand Canyon can't have been formed by the colorado river as it is today.
The side canyons couldn't have been produced by intermittent peiodic flooding. For one they are at much steeper grade than the river course yet the side canyons are cut just as deeply as the river yet much steeper. Which means they occurred at the same time.
Look at the geologic map of the canyon and you'll discover that the side canyons correspond fault lines that run parallel to the side canyons. Which isn't coincidence. And, notice that this fact is ignored by geologists. The geologists ignore any thing contrary to their satanically insiperd world view. Which is why if you are too cloned to think for yourself you will never escape the endarkement imposed upon your minds by the Devil.

Joman
The stokes law formula isn't some hard to understand formula. It is the one that proves your geologist is wrong. What your failing to do is to actually consider what a global flood would actually do.

Joman.

 

[LittleNipper]

Where is the geologist that knows how sediments were laid down?

White cliffs of Dover.
High purity.
Not comparable to any present day ocean bottom enviroment.
Much, much, much thicker than any present day ocean bottom.
Only exists locally.
Not a global deposit as it must be to qualify as a ancient ocean bottom.
Purer that any present day ocean bottom enviroment will allow over any extended time period.
Not below sea level.

The truth of there having been a global flood requires a global view not a locale view. Small local views are anomalistic due to the complexity of the global flood's underwater envieroments.
There aren't any water formed geologic formations that water during the global flood couldn't have made. The difference will manifest itself in the size and fit to the global picture.
The deceived geologists use eons of time as an excuse and a specious explaination for deposition.
Which I have already refuted with out a rebuttal from your resident goalshifting geologist.

The hair pin turns were formed by temporary water courses during the abation stage of the global flood.
When you take a more distant view of the canyons you will see that in the distance are the remnant outlines of the water courses at an earlier stage of the abation. As the water decreased in volume the courses narrowed within the larger outline. It really is quite obvious when you look and think for yourself.

Rapid flow rate changes and water course changes easily explain may sedimentary anomalies which eons of time can't.
Erosion events that remove strata completely while retaining layers above and below is easily explained by a change in flow direction and changes in flow rate. And, will be evidenced by the larger terrain view of the layer. Some of which has been done already.
It is evidenced by particle size analysis.

It is obvious that the Grand Canyon can't have been formed by the colorado river as it is today.
The side canyons couldn't have been produced by intermittent peiodic flooding. For one they are at much steeper grade than the river course yet the side canyons are cut just as deeply as the river yet much steeper. Which means they occurred at the same time.
Look at the geologic map of the canyon and you'll discover that the side canyons correspond fault lines that run parallel to the side canyons. Which isn't coincidence. And, notice that this fact is ignored by geologists. The geologists ignore any thing contrary to their satanically insiperd world view. Which is why if you are too cloned to think for yourself you will never escape the endarkement imposed upon your minds by the Devil.

Joman
The stokes law formula isn't some hard to understand formula. It is the one that proves your geologist is wrong. What your failing to do is to actually consider what a global flood would actually do.

Joman.

I was taught as a child that the Appalachian Mountains show heavy wear and represent among the oldest mountain formations because of the errosion. Well, me thinks that this only proves that their surface area was likely a creation of the FLOOD. And apparently so was the Grand Canyon. So here we show two very large areas that could have been the result of the FLOOD, but uniformitarian geologists only see billions of years. They do not understand the data, because they are committed to evolution.

 

[TheBear]

And remember, people, when referring to the global flood, it isn't 'flood'. It's 'FLOOD'. (Be sure to capitalize all the letters in the word. )

 

[Split Rock]

I was taught as a child that the Appalachian Mountains show heavy wear and represent among the oldest mountain formations because of the errosion. Well, me thinks that this only proves that their surface area was likely a creation of the FLOOD. And apparently so was the Grand Canyon. So here we show two very large areas that could have been the result of the FLOOD, but uniformitarian geologists only see billions of years. They do not understand the data, because they are committed to evolution.

Geologists are not committed to evolution, and Uniformitarianism is older than the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. But you go ahead and just keep making things up as you go along. You are indeed a Great Creationist.

 

[Split Rock]

And remember, people, when referring to the global flood, it isn't 'flood'. It's 'FLOOD'. (Be sure to capitalize all the letters in the word. )

What ever happened to "The Deluge?"

 

[thaumaturgy]

Where is the geologist that knows how sediments were laid down?

I'll step in here for tick. There are other better informed geologists, butI have the requisite degrees.

White cliffs of Dover.
High purity.
Not comparable to any present day ocean bottom enviroment.

Coccoliths
These are the main component of the White Cliffs of Dover

Also known as Haptophyta, the Prymnesiophyta includes about 500 living species in 50 genera, with many additonal fossil genera and species, most notably the coccolithophorids. Members of this group are primarily unicellular, and are photosynthetic. They are often important sources of food for aquatic communities. Prymnesiophyte algae are generally marine and are mostly tropical, though there are a few freshwater and terrestrial species reported. The group occurs worldwide, and several species have global distributions. (SOURCE)

Because coccoliths are formed of low-Mg calcite, the most stable form of calcium carbonate, they are readily fossilised.(SOURCE)

Now if you want to discuss extra-biotic massive carbonate deposition (not the same process as the Coccoliths, if I recall) then you need only go as far as the Bahamas:

Carbonate Mud Platforms

Carbonate mud from three small isolated carbonate platforms of Belize (Central America) is largely a product of the breakdown of skeletal grains. The composition of the 63-20- and 20-4-µm fractions of 37 samples was determined by point counting under SEM; composition of the <4-µm fraction was assessed qualitatively under SEM. The 63-4-µm fractions are dominated by fragments of mollusks, the codiacean alga Halimeda, and other skeletal types. About one-third of the particles in the 63-4-µm fractions remained unidentified, probably due to obliteration of diagnostic features by early recrystallization processes such as micritization. Nanograins (<1 µm) and short (3-5 µm) aragonite needles are most common in the <4-µm fraction. These grains are interpreted to be largely fragments of codiacean algae (Halimeda, Penicillus). The 20-4- and <4-µm sediment fractions are composed of 80 and 75% aragonite on average, respectively. Trace element composition of strontium averages 7,900 ppm in the 20-4-µm fraction and in codiacean algae samples, and 5,600 ppm in the <4-µm fraction. Geochemical (trace element) data also argue against inorganic aragonite precipitation within the water column, and favor a skeletal origin. The lower strontium contents in the <4-µm fraction as compared with the 20-4-µm fraction may also be a consequence of early recrystallization processes.(SOURCE)

So please, tell me how modern oceans can't develop this sort of thing? And how a world-wide flood would result in a lithologically pure deposit?

Much, much, much thicker than any present day ocean bottom.

Huh?

Only exists locally.
Not a global deposit as it must be to qualify as a ancient ocean bottom.

Geology doesn't work that way friend. In depositional environments we find many instances of small-scale epieric seas which are of limited extent. And even within these we find many different depositional environments called FACIES.

Of course it's localized. To my knowledge there is no "global" homogenous depositional environment. You need only look at the planet today to see the depositional environment on the west side of the Pacific is dramatically different from the east side! And in between it's different still!

Purer that any present day ocean bottom enviroment will allow over any extended time period.

Oh you'll have to back that one up with a reference.

Not below sea level.

Did you know there's a tropical reef that is much much older than the White Cliffs of Dover and it's from a TROPICAL SEA (that's where reefs form) and it is currently residing in Southeast Missouri.

My wife did her thesis on this, it's called the Bonneterre Dolomite. Do you know why it's important? If you bought anythign with lead in it before 1980 it was probably from Southeast Missouri. These are called MVT (Mississippi Valley Type Massive Sulfide Deposits) and they are a huge industry.

The Bonneterre tells us that at a completely different time from the White Cliffs of Dover we had another tropical ocean over what is now land.

It wasn't above sea level then.

So which was THE Flood? the Flood that produced the White Cliffs or the Flood that produced the Bonneterre reef about 140 million years before?

The truth of there having been a global flood requires a global view not a locale view. Small local views are anomalistic due to the complexity of the global flood's underwater envieroments.

Come again?

There aren't any water formed geologic formations that water during the global flood couldn't have made.

Except, and this is key, that they don't all appear to be from the SAME TIME FRAME.

In otherwords, why do we have an ocean dumping out the White Cliffs of Dover at about the same timeframe that, on the other side of the world, we have Alberta Canada painted as a " wet, humid dinosaur paradise." (SOURCE)?

Was the Flood GLOBAL? Or was it LOCAL? How many years did it take for the Flood to cover the entire planet? A couple million and only in SPOTS?

The difference will manifest itself in the size and fit to the global picture.
The deceived geologists use eons of time as an excuse and a specious explaination for deposition.

No, we use common sense to infer eons of time. If you avoid the sum total of physics, chemistry and biology you can "gin" up whatever sort of depositional weirdness you want.

But you have to avoid all of physics and chemistry to do so.

Which I have already refuted with out a rebuttal from your resident goalshifting geologist.

Please, when you accuse of this, make sure you can back it up. Otherwise you might be bearing false witness.

If you are referring to me, then by all means, tell me where I shifted the goals.

Otherwise please apologize or retract.

The hair pin turns were formed by temporary water courses during the abation stage of the global flood.
When you take a more distant view of the canyons you will see that in the distance are the remnant outlines of the water courses at an earlier stage of the abation. As the water decreased in volume the courses narrowed within the larger outline. It really is quite obvious when you look and think for yourself.

It's really quite obvious when you don't have any SEDIMENTOLOGY classes under your belt either.

Rapid flow rate changes and water course changes easily explain may sedimentary anomalies which eons of time can't.

Rapid flow rate changes result in very distinct depositional features, and in rivers those usually form BRAIDED STREAMS.

Rivers also form very specific deposits of graded bedding that look exactly like they do today as they do in the rock record.

We know how fast they work today to get these bar deposits and graded beds so why do you assume that all of physics would be turned on its head to make those exact same types of deposits we find in the rock record by alarmingly different and bizarre non-physical means?

Erosion events that remove strata completely while retaining layers above and below is easily explained by a change in flow direction and changes in flow rate.

Erosion events that retain layers above? Are you talking about stream undercutting? Because that is pretty limited extent as far as it can undercut.

Please elaborate.

And, will be evidenced by the larger terrain view of the layer. Some of which has been done already.
It is evidenced by particle size analysis.

Then by all means, lay it out for us. You've got the Hjulstrom diagram, and Stokes Law, build your case.

It is obvious that the Grand Canyon can't have been formed by the colorado river as it is today.

Why is that again?

Oh, btw, are you familiar with a concept called MISFIT STREAMS?

Now, granted these are usually related to glaciation events, but the idea is that as the discharge rate changes the stream size will change but the valley size will take a much longer timescale to respond.

In the case of the Colorado it isn't really a Misfit Stream, per se, but you see that we do see places from dramatically different times in the geologic record where streams don't seem to fit their valleys. So which point is the Flood occuring?

The Colorado River seems to do its job pretty well, and it certainly has all the features necessary to explain the Grand Canyon. Perhaps you would have more of a case if there was no evidence for a river that ever flowed through the Grand Canyon, but sadly we are at the worksite and we see the workman and we see his tools and we see him doing his job.

The only think you don't allow is that he have time to do his job.

But why do you not allow him time? Is it because time would require you to give up literal bible interpretation?

The side canyons couldn't have been produced by intermittent peiodic flooding.

I don't believe anyone does suggest that. But we do suggest that there is such a thing as a dendritic drainage pattern

Like we see all over the world. This is from Yemen.

All you need do is go to a stream, there may be one near where you live. You'll see this feature forming today as we speak.

For one they are at much steeper grade than the river course yet the side canyons are cut just as deeply as the river yet much steeper.

Steeper, cuts faster. Is there a problem? Maybe they were shorter term streams.

Which means they occurred at the same time.

So you seem to complain that they are steeper (which means they would cut faster) and cut deeply as the main channel, so you think they can't have occurred penecontemporaneously with the main channel?

Look, I gotta go play with my patent friends and do some real science, maybe I'll drop back in later. I suspect that Frumy or Baggins can come in and lay some hard science down here as well.

 

[Vene]

And remember, people, when referring to the global flood, it isn't 'flood'. It's 'FLOOD'. (Be sure to capitalize all the letters in the word. )

I'd rep you for this if I could. It reminds me of some little kid constantly shouting in a vain attempt to get his/her way.

 

[Baggins]

Where is the geologist that knows how sediments were laid down?

Here I am

White cliffs of Dover.

yep

High purity.

yep

Not comparable to any present day ocean bottom enviroment.

Nope, unless you don't know where any warm shallow seas with little terriginous input are today. I can think of some.

http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/fie...cologyArticles/ComparativeAnalysisofAnci.html

Much, much, much thicker than any present day ocean bottom.

That is just a function of time and preservation. In the case of the White cliffs about 10 million years ( from deposition rates of modern analogues estimated by the Ocean Frilling Programme http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/207_IR/chap_08/c8_7.htm ). Which may be a profound embarrassment to YECs but not to geologists.

Only exists locally.

Of course the White Cliffs of Dover only exist locally, otherwise they'd be the white cliffs of everywhere. That chalk itself exists over most of Southern england and Northern France and also much of the NorthSea basin, where it is a significant oil reservoir rock. Chalks are found the world over and at different times.

Not a global deposit as it must be to qualify as a ancient ocean bottom.

This is stupid, There is no such thing as a global deposit as climatic and depositional regiemes change over the earth.

You don't actually know anything about geology do you?

Purer that any present day ocean bottom enviroment will allow over any extended time period.

Quite possibly but not purere that the conditions at the time would allow.

Not below sea level.

What does this even mean, does this brainiac believe that all marine deposits remain under the ocean for all time? How can someone post on geology when they have obviously never heard of plate tectonics?

The truth of there having been a global flood requires a global view not a locale view.

The truth of their being a global flood requires you to ignore all the evidence of the last 200 years. Also it was you who chose to discuss one lacale of geology, The white cliffs, do you think that is all geologists study.

If there was a global flood there would be a global deposit associated with it, and there isn't, unless you wish to be the first creationist ever brave enough to point a layer out for discussin.

Small local views are anomalistic due to the complexity of the global flood's underwater envieroments.

It doesn't matter how long you spout meaningless waffle, you will not be able to point to a geological layer that represents a global flood, least of all one that happened 4000 years ago

There aren't any water formed geologic formations that water during the global flood couldn't have made.

apart from: Chalks, limestones and shales. In fact pretty much any marine sediment would have a better explanation that global flood.

The difference will manifest itself in the size and fit to the global picture.

Which you will be totally unable to show.

The deceived geologists use eons of time as an excuse and a specious explaination for deposition.

Time is used as an excuse for deposition? What sort of rubbish is that? Geologists can point to modern analogues of any deposition regieme you care to mention, and we can show tha tthe deposition does often take long periods of time experimentally, as the ODP have done.

Which I have already refuted with out a rebuttal from your resident goalshifting geologist.

How can you refute geology when you obviously know nothing about it, you are a joke.

The hair pin turns were formed by temporary water courses during the abation stage of the global flood.

The simpler explanation being they are due to the process that is continuing today, river erosion. That is before you have even got into the problem that stability of cliffs of soft sediment give to your "model" or the reason why there is, in that case, only one Grand canyon.

When you take a more distant view of the canyons you will see that in the distance are the remnant outlines of the water courses at an earlier stage of the abation. As the water decreased in volume the courses narrowed within the larger outline. It really is quite obvious when you look and think for yourself.

Which you are obviously incapable of doing as you just cut and paste from creationist web sites.

Rapid flow rate changes and water course changes easily explain may sedimentary anomalies which eons of time can't.

How do they explain aeolian sandstones and evaporites?

Erosion events that remove strata completely while retaining layers above and below is easily explained by a change in flow direction and changes in flow rate. And, will be evidenced by the larger terrain view of the layer. Some of which has been done already.

All this stuff that you claim is easily explainable, yet you don't bother explaining it in any detail.

It is evidenced by particle size analysis.

What is evidenced by particle size analysis is that a flood event couldn't deposit any of the rocks associated with the grand canyon, let alone the white cliffs of Dover.

I mean do you even know what chalk is composed of?

It is obvious that the Grand Canyon can't have been formed by the colorado river as it is today.

It is obvious that he Grand Canyon could only have been formed by the process that we see continuing to form it today.


.

Which is why if you are too cloned to think for yourself you will never escape the endarkement imposed upon your minds by the Devil.

I think this shows all you need to know about this persons motivation for the drivel he is posting.

The stokes law formula isn't some hard to understand formula. It is the one that proves your geologist is wrong

.

How

What your failing to do is to actually consider what a global flood would actually do.

The global flood was falsified 200 years ago by Christians. That is what you are failing to consider.

I am a geologist with 19 years experience in the oil industry we use an old earth model and uniformitarianism techniques to discover oil, oil companies aren't fussy about which techniques they use to find oil, they use what works.

You will be taken more seriously when you open up your own oil company using flood geology.

Good luck with that

 

[FishFace]

I believe in embedded age (ex nihilo) --- not embedded history (omphalos).

A distinction which you've STILL given us no reason to believe is anything other than meaningless.

 

[FishFace]

The explanation of the Theory of Gravity can be either atheistic, or theistic.

You can say G=m[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

And that where it comes from, no one presently knows.

We would say G=m[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

And that it comes from God.

Thus violating Ockham's razor and removing it from science. "Comes from God" is completely unnecessary and unevidenced.

 

[FishFace]

Where is the geologist that knows how sediments were laid down?

White cliffs of Dover.
High purity.
Not comparable to any present day ocean bottom enviroment.
Much, much, much thicker than any present day ocean bottom.
Only exists locally.
Not a global deposit as it must be to qualify as a ancient ocean bottom.

You think all ocean bottom is the same kind of rock?

Not below sea level.

Hey, there are fossilised sea creatures up Mt Everest. Mt Everest is also being pushed up at a rate of 3-6mm per year. It doesn't take a genius to work out that, not only do sea levels changed, but that land can move up and down.

The truth of there having been a global flood requires a global view not a locale view. Small local views are anomalistic due to the complexity of the global flood's underwater envieroments.
There aren't any water formed geologic formations that water during the global flood couldn't have made. The difference will manifest itself in the size and fit to the global picture.

Describe, in detail, how the flood created the grand canyon. How did it lay down all the layers of sediment, complete with surface features in those layers such as sand dunes (thank you thaumaturgy) and then erode back through them?

Which I have already refuted with out a rebuttal from your resident goalshifting geologist.

What's your rebuttal of deep time, again? I missed it.

The hair pin turns were formed by temporary water courses during the abation stage of the global flood.
When you take a more distant view of the canyons you will see that in the distance are the remnant outlines of the water courses at an earlier stage of the abation. As the water decreased in volume the courses narrowed within the larger outline. It really is quite obvious when you look and think for yourself.

How long was the abation period, and how fast did the water course change? You realise it takes quite a while for an entire canyon to change course even slightly.

Rapid flow rate changes and water course changes easily explain may sedimentary anomalies which eons of time can't.

Go on then.

Erosion events that remove strata completely while retaining layers above and below is easily explained by a change in flow direction and changes in flow rate.

Then why don't you do it?

It is obvious that the Grand Canyon can't have been formed by the colorado river as it is today.
The side canyons couldn't have been produced by intermittent peiodic flooding. For one they are at much steeper grade than the river course yet the side canyons are cut just as deeply as the river yet much steeper.

I'm no geologist, and I don't know the details of the canyon, but have you never heard of a hanging valley?

Look at the geologic map of the canyon and you'll discover that the side canyons correspond fault lines that run parallel to the side canyons. Which isn't coincidence. And, notice that this fact is ignored by geologists.

If it's ignored by geologists, who was it who noticed this?

The geologists ignore any thing contrary to their satanically insiperd world view. Which is why if you are too cloned to think for yourself you will never escape the endarkement imposed upon your minds by the Devil.

The devil isn't deceiving us, he's deceiving you! Prove me wrong!

The stokes law formula isn't some hard to understand formula. It is the one that proves your geologist is wrong. What your failing to do is to actually consider what a global flood would actually do.

Well prove it! Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk!

 

[thaumaturgy]

The Grand Canyon was formed quickly at the end of the flood.
The sediment layers couldn't have been formed over long expanses of time since each layer consists of a simple and unique recipe of constituent materials. there isn't any way to explain how over an eon of time only a unique recipe of constituent materials was deposited.

Really? Point to a perfectly homogenous strata in the Grand Canyon. One that doesn't have any variability in it.

But even then, don't you think there are depositional basins today that have a relatively homogenous input?

The specific gravity of the materials in a sedimentary layer isn't the dominant force applied. It is only dominant in still water.

Well, most of the sediments like sand and clay will be similar in specific gravity (around 1.8 to 2.5g/cc if I am recalling correctly) so particle shape and size will be a bigger differentiator if I recall. But in point of fact, shape makes a difference in still water as well. That's why Stokes Law is harder to apply to settling clays which have this shape:

FLAT AND PLATY

versus sand grains which have this shape:

Round and blocky.

The dominant force in flowing water is particle size.

Well, technically speaking it's how much energy it takes to keep a piece of sediment suspended or moved along the bottom of the channel, which can be a trade off in particle size, density, and shape. The Hjulstrom diagram is a simplification and reduces it down to the particle size.

Indeed erosion of grains and "lifting" them off the bed is , in part, a function of density.

" Which grains get entrained in the flow depends on their size and density(SOURCE)"

In addition:

A. Hjulstöm's Curve: concerns the minimum shear stress to get a grain to move in a flow (i.e. [SIZE=+1]t[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]c[/SIZE]) . In general larger grains require higher [SIZE=+1]t[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]c[/SIZE]
The curve is a bit fuzzy because interial effects are involved (i.e. [SIZE=+1]t[/SIZE]to get the grain to move vs. to keep it moving can be a bit different). (SOURCE)

(Emphasis added)

So to get a grain to move, you do have to take into account the density or mass of the particle.

In reality Hjulstrom is a simplification, a more thorough discussion of how to get a particle moving and held aloft or scuttering along the bed is provided HERE and involves a bit more detail than simply the particle size.

I am pretty sure I can carry a bigger piece of silica aerogel in flowing water than a smaller piece of barium sulfate at a given velocity. Certainly I could move a piece of the fromer more easily than the latter, at a given flow velocity even if the aerogel were pretty large compared to the barite.

I recommend you take some clay samples and disperse them in water and see how long it takes to settle out. This is how it is done in clay mineralogy labs like I used to work in.

Then explain how we can have a Flood so violent that it can erode massive amounts of rock away, including very hard materials like the Vishnu formation, AND effectively hydrologically sort the particles such that we end up with this layering:

The little "dashes" are shales or fine-grained materials. The "dots" are sandstones.

Why wouldn't a massive hydrologic process occuring over a very short period of time not mix them all up?

Or do you think the various layers of the Grand Canyon were laid down at some distant time before the Flood? If that's the case, there's plenty of evidence of massive time required if only because we have so many different depositional environments represented in the Grand Canyon column.

Please, do us the great favor, of explaining STEP-BY-STEP what you think happened.

Start with the Vishnu Formation at the bottom, tell us when and how it was deposited, lithified, metamorphosed, tilted, eroded, and then other material deposited on it, and then when the Flood occurred.

That might help us understand your "hypothesis".

Formations like the Grand Canyon can be formed very quickly in a global flood enviroment. Flow rates, and vectors can change rapidly to cause every manner of deposition found.

Have you ever heard of such a thing resulting in modern DEPOSITIONAL and EROSIONAL features that mimic the Grand Canyon?

I mean point to a formation that was LAID DOWN, LITHIFIED, had other materials of dramatically different particle size LAID DOWN ON TOP OF IT and LITHIFIED, and repeated numerous times, THEN eroded such that they were SOLID when eroded (ie not soft sediments) and were able to create SOLID CLIFFS of HARD ROCK ALL WITHIN THE SPACE OF ONE YEAR.

You see, geologists like Uniformitarianism because it allows us to look at each formation and say "A ha! That looks like a dune being formed today in the Sahara! The rocks below it look like a marine shale just like we see deposited in the Gulf of Mexico today! And the formation above the dune layer must have been at a different time because it looks like a marine layer on top of the dune! And the layer above that looks like a freshwater layer!"

Instead of trying to bend and twist all of hydrology and physics to explain things simply because you don't want it to take a long time.

Why do you not want it to take a long time? Is it because of the DATA? No, it's because an unrelated book by a group of anonymous people in the distant past told you it was short time. And they never saw the Grand Canyon, let alone understood Geology.

 

[Joman]

You think all ocean bottom is the same kind of rock?



Hey, there are fossilised sea creatures up Mt Everest. Mt Everest is also being pushed up at a rate of 3-6mm per year. It doesn't take a genius to work out that, not only do sea levels changed, but that land can move up and down.



Describe, in detail, how the flood created the grand canyon. How did it lay down all the layers of sediment, complete with surface features in those layers such as sand dunes (thank you thaumaturgy) and then erode back through them?



What's your rebuttal of deep time, again? I missed it.



How long was the abation period, and how fast did the water course change? You realise it takes quite a while for an entire canyon to change course even slightly.



Go on then.



Then why don't you do it?



I'm no geologist, and I don't know the details of the canyon, but have you never heard of a hanging valley?



If it's ignored by geologists, who was it who noticed this?



The devil isn't deceiving us, he's deceiving you! Prove me wrong!



Well prove it! Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk!

You think all ocean bottom is the same kind of rock?

No. It's shallow and evidences youthfulness.

Hey, there are fossilised sea creatures up Mt Everest. Mt Everest is also being pushed up at a rate of 3-6mm per year. It doesn't take a genius to work out that, not only do sea levels changed, but that land can move up and down.

The Himayayas rose quickly at some time during or after the Deluge due to a sliding of the crust on a plate of water which is trapped in the emptied cavern area left only partially filled wiath residual water.
The slide occurred after the deposition of sediments but before they were hardened beyond bending.
the rise was rapid as evidenced by the sharp peaks.
The sharpness of the peaks proves that the mountains there are young since no significant erosion has occurred YET!
The mm rise you mention is the residual motion of the sliding crust event I spoke of above.
This is the same reason you see the earth warming and the glaciers continually melting. They, as are other things that are evidenced are results of the catastrophic event of the global flood of Noah's day.

Describe, in detail, how the flood created the grand canyon. How did it lay down all the layers of sediment, complete with surface features in those layers such as sand dunes (thank you thaumaturgy) and then erode back through them?

Maybe some other time.

What's your rebuttal of deep time, again? I missed it.

Time isn't deep.

How long was the abation period,

Read the AV bible for yourself.

how fast did the water course change

As fast as was responsible for dropping loads of sediment rapidly. Remember the flow also increases. You don't seem aware of the complexity your dealing with.
Use the acual stokes law diagram yourself.

You realise it takes quite a while for an entire canyon to change course even slightly.

The canyon didn't change it's course. The fault lines indicate that the grand canyon was shaken by either being dropped or rattled while it was hardening. It probably was after the flood during a time when many floods broke out of inland basins due to earthquakes and shifting of the new stratas.
that's why the canyon is laid out as a penetration of water into the land mass.

The rest of your post is off topic.
Joman.

 

[Split Rock]

The Himalayas rose quickly at some time during or after the Deluge due to a sliding of the crust on a plate of water which is trapped in the emptied cavern area left only partially filled wiath residual water.

I assume you have some evidence of the existence of this cavern?

The slide occurred after the deposition of sediments but before they were hardened beyond bending.

Just how much time passed between the deposition and the bending of partially hardened strata?

the rise was rapid as evidenced by the sharp peaks.

Why would sharp peaks be evidence that the rise was rapid?

The sharpness of the peaks proves that the mountains there are young since no significant erosion has occurred YET!

Yes! We all agree with you on this point. Relatively speaking, the Himalayas are young. In fact, they are still growing, unlike the Appalachians which are old and worn.

The mm rise you mention is the residual motion of the sliding crust event I spoke of above.

What about plate tectonics? Is that all bunk?

This is the same reason you see the earth warming and the glaciers continually melting. They, as are other things that are evidenced are results of the catastrophic event of the global flood of Noah's day.

I thought the immediate result of the Flood was The Ice Age? Could you explain why the Bible neglects to mention the Ice Age, or why the evidence indicates there were several advances and retreats of the glaciers during the last Ice Age? Deep time has no problem with this evidence, but a young earth model certainly does.

 

[Joman]

Really? Point to a perfectly homogenous strata in the Grand Canyon. One that doesn't have any variability in it.

But even then, don't you think there are depositional basins today that have a relatively homogenous input?





Well, most of the sediments like sand and clay will be similar in specific gravity (around 1.8 to 2.5g/cc if I am recalling correctly) so particle shape and size will be a bigger differentiator if I recall. But in point of fact, shape makes a difference in still water as well. That's why Stokes Law is harder to apply to settling clays which have this shape:

FLAT AND PLATY

versus sand grains which have this shape:

Round and blocky.



Well, technically speaking it's how much energy it takes to keep a piece of sediment suspended or moved along the bottom of the channel, which can be a trade off in particle size, density, and shape. The Hjulstrom diagram is a simplification and reduces it down to the particle size.

Indeed erosion of grains and "lifting" them off the bed is , in part, a function of density.

" Which grains get entrained in the flow depends on their size and density(SOURCE)"

In addition:

(Emphasis added)

So to get a grain to move, you do have to take into account the density or mass of the particle.

In reality Hjulstrom is a simplification, a more thorough discussion of how to get a particle moving and held aloft or scuttering along the bed is provided HERE and involves a bit more detail than simply the particle size.

I am pretty sure I can carry a bigger piece of silica aerogel in flowing water than a smaller piece of barium sulfate at a given velocity. Certainly I could move a piece of the fromer more easily than the latter, at a given flow velocity even if the aerogel were pretty large compared to the barite.

I recommend you take some clay samples and disperse them in water and see how long it takes to settle out. This is how it is done in clay mineralogy labs like I used to work in.

Then explain how we can have a Flood so violent that it can erode massive amounts of rock away, including very hard materials like the Vishnu formation, AND effectively hydrologically sort the particles such that we end up with this layering:

The little "dashes" are shales or fine-grained materials. The "dots" are sandstones.

Why wouldn't a massive hydrologic process occuring over a very short period of time not mix them all up?

Or do you think the various layers of the Grand Canyon were laid down at some distant time before the Flood? If that's the case, there's plenty of evidence of massive time required if only because we have so many different depositional environments represented in the Grand Canyon column.

Please, do us the great favor, of explaining STEP-BY-STEP what you think happened.

Start with the Vishnu Formation at the bottom, tell us when and how it was deposited, lithified, metamorphosed, tilted, eroded, and then other material deposited on it, and then when the Flood occurred.

That might help us understand your "hypothesis".



Have you ever heard of such a thing resulting in modern DEPOSITIONAL and EROSIONAL features that mimic the Grand Canyon?

I mean point to a formation that was LAID DOWN, LITHIFIED, had other materials of dramatically different particle size LAID DOWN ON TOP OF IT and LITHIFIED, and repeated numerous times, THEN eroded such that they were SOLID when eroded (ie not soft sediments) and were able to create SOLID CLIFFS of HARD ROCK ALL WITHIN THE SPACE OF ONE YEAR.

You see, geologists like Uniformitarianism because it allows us to look at each formation and say "A ha! That looks like a dune being formed today in the Sahara! The rocks below it look like a marine shale just like we see deposited in the Gulf of Mexico today! And the formation above the dune layer must have been at a different time because it looks like a marine layer on top of the dune! And the layer above that looks like a freshwater layer!"

Instead of trying to bend and twist all of hydrology and physics to explain things simply because you don't want it to take a long time.

Why do you not want it to take a long time? Is it because of the DATA? No, it's because an unrelated book by a group of anonymous people in the distant past told you it was short time. And they never saw the Grand Canyon, let alone understood Geology.

Point to a perfectly homogenous strata in the Grand Canyon.

Your the geologist. Present your point yourself.

don't you think there are depositional basins today that have a relatively homogenous input

What in the world do you mean by relatively?
Again. Your supposed to be a geologist. so, present your point yourself.

Well, most of the sediments like sand and clay will be similar in specific gravity (around 1.8 to 2.5g/cc if I am recalling correctly) so particle shape and size will be a bigger differentiator if I recall. But in point of fact, shape makes a difference in still water as well. That's why Stokes Law is harder to apply to settling clays which have this shape:

True.
But, and maybe your going there but I don't have much time, in flowing water the drop out rates are forced more by particle size. think of the rapid and extremely complex changes in temperature, desities, flow rates excetra and you may begin toe realize that the action of water during the Deluge was able to many unpredictable things.

Then explain how we can have a Flood so violent that it can erode massive amounts of rock away, including very hard materials like the Vishnu formation, AND effectively hydrologically sort the particles such that we end up with this layering:

I can't do it all now can I?
Of coursae not.
But, it can be done. You are not realizing that no matter how you propose it happened the Deluge catastrophy was able to do it. You only actual arguement is that you con't believe it can happen quickly.
What I'm saying is all the forces were present in the Deluge. Massive earthquakes, tunami's, hugely violent winters, fountains of the deep cracking open, huge precipitation events due to the unimagined oversaturation of the water with no where to go against the crush of all things caught in the violent waters.
I's all there.
There are cracks in the vishnu which proves there was a earthquake with underlying magmas posed to fill the cracks.
The immediately overlying sediments are slanted probably due to being dropped and bounced.
they are already layered which show they were previously laid down on the basement or on a intervening eroded layer. But, there not lined up as above either which means that the upper ones immediately followed the Grand Canyon craking event which the fault lines prove happened.
Above that are many series of sediments. Eac a recipe unique. Many of them in ascending order of lessening average layer specific gravity.

Why wouldn't a massive hydrologic process occuring over a very short period of time not mix them all up?

Because of the crush.
Many sources were sediments already laid down and picked up again.
Segregation being produced by flow, source isolation, suspention forces, temperature banding of water, high speed flow rates allowing on the move segregation, immense precipitation events, the rapid erosion of homogenous rock sources. And on and on and on.

Have you ever heard of such a thing resulting in modern DEPOSITIONAL and EROSIONAL features that mimic the Grand Canyon?

Yes, and a rapidly formed one at that.

I mean point to a formation that was LAID DOWN, LITHIFIED, had other materials of dramatically different particle size LAID DOWN ON TOP OF IT and LITHIFIED, and repeated numerous times, THEN eroded such that they were SOLID when eroded (ie not soft sediments) and were able to create SOLID CLIFFS of HARD ROCK ALL WITHIN THE SPACE OF ONE YEAR.

The proof is in front of you. You haven't accepted the proof I offered you to consider. Which proof is this.
That the sediments you see before you cannot have been laid down slowly over eons of time because, over any such eon of time, the doesn't exist an enviroment that segregates sediments like water does while only possessing a few materials for the recipe of any of the layer in question.
There never was and will never be such pristine and un tampered eviroments. Especially on any large global scale.

You see, geologists like Uniformitarianism because it allows us to look at each formation and say

Here-in is the truth of your error.
It's just a story your telling. And my main pint is that it isn't plausible by any scientifically believable way other than the Deluge. You are only looking at the rock in front of your nose maybe? Step back an look again. and tell me how you imagine and enviroment where only quartzite existed, or only plants, or only small shells, or only whatever.

"A ha! That looks like a dune being formed today in the Sahara! The rocks below it look like a marine shale just like we see deposited in the Gulf of Mexico today! And the formation above the dune layer must have been at a different time because it looks like a marine layer on top of the dune! And the layer above that looks like a freshwater layer!"

And, you storytelling isn't science. Nor is it historical as is the Deluge. It is merely a pliable storyline that twists and turns faster and harder that the hydrological forces you meantioned.
Look at a layer and tell a story and then defend agaisnt all common sense.

Joman.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The Himayayas rose quickly at some time during or after the Deluge due to a sliding of the crust on a plate of water which is trapped in the emptied cavern area left only partially filled wiath residual water.

You do realize that Gravity surveys have been run across the Tibetan Plateau.

Would you like to point us in the direction of actual data to support the existence of significant residual giant water pools under the Himalayas?

The slide occurred after the deposition of sediments but before they were hardened beyond bending.

Soft sediment deformation looks rather different from tectonic plate deformation.

Time isn't deep.

Something around here certainly is.

As fast as was responsible for dropping loads of sediment rapidly. Remember the flow also increases. You don't seem aware of the complexity your dealing with.

Actually, for a non-geologist, Fish acquits himself quite nicely. I think it comes from having an appreciation that other people actually do know the complexity they are dealing with.

So far your posts have been really light on "complexity" and really heavy on hand-waiving.

Please explain the complexity to us.

The canyon didn't change it's course. The fault lines indicate that the grand canyon was shaken by either being dropped or rattled while it was hardening.

"Dropped"? What specifically dropped? Is the Grand Canyon part of a much larger graben structure? Could you please point us in the direction of data to that effect?

Also, be aware that many many river systems exploit fracture sets and joint sets. All over the world and all throughout time. Even unto this day.

It probably was after the flood during a time when many floods broke out of inland basins due to earthquakes and shifting of the new stratas.

Are you just making this up as you go along? Care to elaborate?

I'd be interested to read your take on this. Other than just-so stories, maybe you could explain the in-depth physics of "shifting new stratas".

that's why the canyon is laid out as a penetration of water into the land mass.

Just so ya know, that pretty much describes every river on the planet. Are they all due to the Flood? Is the Flood still going on???? I thought it ended in Genesis.

The rest of your post is off topic.
Joman.

Joman, I would appreciate it if you would respond substantively to Baggins or my posts.

Provide some data sources. And maybe a description.

If you'd like, just take a couple of strata from the Grand Canyon and explain how they came to be in relation to each other and the other strata above and below.

Detailed, please, instead of just waiving your hands in the air like ya just don't care.

 

[Baggins]

No. It's shallow and evidences youthfulness.

You seem to be unaware that he earth's surface isn't motionless, it moves around, seas are created and destroyed, it is a dynamic body.

I don't know why that should suprise me considering the depth of ignorance you show about the history of the earth, but it does.

The Himayayas rose quickly at some time during or after the Deluge due to a sliding of the crust on a plate of water which is trapped in the emptied cavern area left only partially filled wiath residual water.

No they didn't they rose slowly of many millions of years as the Indian plate collided with the Asian plate, this collision is stillhappening now and is measurable, as has been pointed out to you. The rocks that were thrown up by the collision can be dated, thus rendering your hypothesis a fairy tale


Snip the rest of the quackery because it is really pointless.

While Joman puts forward his ridiculous ideas what he fails to understand, in exacly the same way that creationists railing against evolution fail to understand, is that out in the real world geologists are using an old earth, uniformitarian model to discover oil and minerals.

Oil companies don't really care about science they use what works, there are no oil companies using flood geology to find oil, you may want to ponder why that is the case, if Joman is right and all geology in the last 200 years is wrong, then why is it so successful in finding oil and minerals?

Exactly could be said about pharmacutical companies and the theory of evolution, they are publically quoted companies and if they weren't making money through using the theory of evolution in the development of vaccines etc they would soon drop it.

Modern geology works, so we should treat Joman's comical misunderstandings of geology as entertainment, and as a useful tool to show lurkers how little he knows and how far flood geology falls short of explaining the earth's geological record.

After all that is why Christian geologists like William Buckland discarded it as an hypothesis 200 years ago. If they, at the dawn of the science of geology could see it was a crock, now after 200 years of subsequent research that is only more evident.

 

[Joman]

I assume you have some evidence of the existence of this cavern?

I assume you don't do your one homework?
I'll tell you this the deepest hole ever dug revealed that water was already there under miles of uncracked rock.

Just how much time passed between the deposition and the bending of partially hardened strata?

Not much. But, hey I can bend a cigarette into a knot on the same principle and not break it.
remember, that the sediments don't dry via convection currents. The water is pressed out. Look at the redwall of the grand canyon!

Why would sharp peaks be evidence that the rise was rapid?

Because the sharpness is due to such a rapid thrust of the rock upward that no bending was allowed which implies quickness. a slow upward advance is evidenced by bending. Which could lead to a sharp snap action eventually of course. but, and also the sharp peaks show that the rise couldn't have been slowly or the sharp peaks would've worn down due to natural erosion forces present at ground level in denser air inhabited by grainy winds.and rain fall.

In fact, they are still growing, unlike the Appalachians which are old and worn.

Nothing growing. There isn't a force in existence that grows mountains or circulates plates. Nor is there a actual rock cycle. Uniformitarianism would actually produce flattened continents without anything but basement rock. But, they don't tell you that do they?

What about plate tectonics? Is that all bunk?

Yes! It a story without any proof. All you have to do is google "late techonics +problems with". But, that would require objectivety also.

I thought the immediate result of the Flood was The Ice Age?

There was in the north.

Could you explain why the Bible neglects to mention the Ice Age,

because there wasn't an ice age in Mesopotamia.
And, unlike many on these threads God doesn't go off topic.

or why the evidence indicates there were several advances and retreats of the glaciers during the last Ice Age?

The bible isn't about such off topic things. But, after the flood and during it the huge volumes of ice and bergs floated over the ground scraping and gouging back and forth.
But, also as the abation proceded the waters rose and fell as is evidence by and observation of decreasing water volume.


Deep time has no problem with this evidence, but a young earth model certainly does.

 

[Joman]

Look I'm out of here for now.

You have endless questions and no true story to tell.
But I'll be back soon for the readers of these posts.


Joman.

 

[Split Rock]

You are not realizing that no matter how you propose it happened the Deluge catastrophy was able to do it.

Thus you have created a non-falsifiable just-so story.

What I'm saying is all the forces were present in the Deluge. Massive earthquakes, tunami's, hugely violent winters, fountains of the deep cracking open, huge precipitation events due to the unimagined oversaturation of the water with no where to go against the crush of all things caught in the violent waters.

Where is your evidence for any of this? The Bible only mentions the "fountains of the deep" bursting open. It makes no mention of earthquakes, tsunamis, or violent winters.

I's all there.

In your imagination.

There are cracks in the vishnu which proves there was a earthquake with underlying magmas posed to fill the cracks.
The immediately overlying sediments are slanted probably due to being dropped and bounced.

"Dropped and bounced??"

Because of the crush.
Many sources were sediments already laid down and picked up again.
Segregation being produced by flow, source isolation, suspention forces, temperature banding of water, high speed flow rates allowing on the move segregation, immense precipitation events, the rapid erosion of homogenous rock sources. And on and on and on.

Yes, your ad-hoc hand-waving goes on and on and on....

The proof is in front of you. You haven't accepted the proof I offered you to consider.

You have offered no "proof."

Which proof is this.
That the sediments you see before you cannot have been laid down slowly over eons of time because, over any such eon of time, the doesn't exist an enviroment that segregates sediments like water does while only possessing a few materials for the recipe of any of the layer in question.
There never was and will never be such pristine and un tampered eviroments. Especially on any large global scale.

This is not proof, this would be evidence against the mainstream explanation. Unfortunately, there are no such "pristine" strata. There are fossils of different organisms and traces of worm trials, etc. in these "pristine" strata. If you think there are strata which could only be layed down by a global flood, then give us some specific examples.