Wired: How to Date the Grand Canyon: Go With the Flow

RobertByers · Mar 19, 2008

Split Rock said:
If you cannot answer the hard questions then all you have indeed is a "tale"... a Tall one at that.

Then how is it possible that some sediment was caught in the middle of this "instant" transition? We should only see sediment, or rock... nothing in between.

Or nothing.

Since the pressure is what turned the sediment into rock it follows simply that if the pressure was a smaller percent in power it would not make it to rock. Or the same power suddenly turned off by a new flow in the water. It would be great pressured water and sediment going everywhich way.
10% or 50% along the way from sediment into rock would be predicted by a creationist flood model.
Sed rock is just sed transformed by pressure.
We say instant or close to instant and the other guys say over long periods of time.
Testing either way is impossible, I think, but our idea fits more with what is observed. Our opponents even sincerely don't see it as it requires such great water weight. They can't imagine how on earth that could happen so they say long time. However its just a guess.
Rob Byers

Split Rock · Mar 19, 2008

RobertByers said:
However its just a guess.
Rob Byers

Ahhh... now I understand. OK then.

RobertByers · Mar 19, 2008

dlamberth said:
Have you done any field work in the area?

I'm curious about timing. There are many Columbia River basalt flood events recorded, maybe as many as 300. How long do creationist believe it took for all of these events to happen. If, as you say, all of that basalt poured out of the ground about 1800 bc, when did the Missoula floods happen? Where in time do you peg that event? And, because they are part of the geological structure of the NorthWest, when did the Cascade Mountains begin to grow?

.

Private study but still study.
The missoula flood happened at the end of the ice age so about1400 B.C. The basaly , as this creationist sees it, happened about 1800 b.c. I see the whole spine of the new world suddenly exploding with volcanoes and probably this is what caused the ice age which lasted some 400 years. The clues are in the fauna fossils. The basalt and company happened when these or those fossils types were in North America etc. The fossils are post flood. I'm taking however that these basalt flows are after the k-t boundary as the poster said here.
Many creationists see these areas as happening during the flood but my measure are the fauna fossils.
Rob byers

Baggins · Mar 20, 2008

[serious];44862891 said:
If one criticizes another's grammar, one should be cautious about one's own...

In English English, as opposed to American English, words that start with an H, with some exceptions, take an rather than a.

An hotel
An holiday
An house

I would suggest that an high school education, based on this same premis, is therefore correct.

I don't know why this should be the case, probably because H isn't a strong letter sound so it takes an like a word beginning with a vowel.

It was what I was taught at school, although it may be becoming archaic, LIKE ME

an1

/ən; when stressed æn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh

n; when stressed an] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–indefinite article the form of a before an initial vowel sound (an arch; an honor) and sometimes, esp. in British English, before an initial unstressed syllable beginning with a silent or weakly pronounced h: an historian.

Baggins · Mar 20, 2008

RobertByers said:
Private study but still study.
The missoula flood happened at the end of the ice age so about1400 B.C. The basaly , as this creationist sees it, happened about 1800 b.c. I see the whole spine of the new world suddenly exploding with volcanoes and probably this is what caused the ice age which lasted some 400 years. The clues are in the fauna fossils. The basalt and company happened when these or those fossils types were in North America etc. The fossils are post flood. I'm taking however that these basalt flows are after the k-t boundary as the poster said here.
Many creationists see these areas as happening during the flood but my measure are the fauna fossils.
Rob byers

Very often auto-didacticism, although admirable in many ways, leads to erroneous conclusions, especially when it is being used to bolster a preconceived idea such as a religious story.

That is why we go to school and university to be taught what conclusions the accumulated wisdom of 2 centuries has learnt from nature.

You are clothing your dogma in a scientific suit. You may think it sounds good but it means nothing because you have done no research and you have no evidence.

Anyone one can say a flood basalt erupted in 1800ce, 1800 bce or 18ma. A scientists would do radiometric dating on the basalt flow to get a real age not an arm chair guess.

I imagine the basalts you are describing have been dated, and I doubt they all date to 1800ce.

Molal · Mar 20, 2008

RobertByers said:
Since the pressure is what turned the sediment into rock it follows simply that if the pressure was a smaller percent in power it would not make it to rock. Or the same power suddenly turned off by a new flow in the water. It would be great pressured water and sediment going everywhich way.
10% or 50% along the way from sediment into rock would be predicted by a creationist flood model.
Sed rock is just sed transformed by pressure.
We say instant or close to instant and the other guys say over long periods of time.
Testing either way is impossible, I think, but our idea fits more with what is observed. Our opponents even sincerely don't see it as it requires such great water weight. They can't imagine how on earth that could happen so they say long time. However its just a guess.
Rob Byers

Robert,

You know for a fact, that pressure alone does not turn sediments into rock. Deep sea sediments, (known as oozes) are extracted with frequency from the abyssal plains (3-4 Km depth). At this depth, the oozes are wet sediment - similar in consistency to corn starch in water. Sediments extracted from the marianas trench (8-10 Km depth) are also wet, runny sediments.

So, we know that a column water of at least 10 Km will not lithify sediment. We also know that a moving column of water will not lithify sediment. Take a garden hose and place it on sand, the moving water will erode the sand - check out the dewatering channels on the beach. In addition, you should view the imagery of hyper viscose water (sediment laidened or hypersaline) flows that erode the abyssal plain sediments and/or the continental shelf sediments.

All this negates your assertion that a moving column of water lithifies sediment.

In addition (if that wasn't enough), lithification doesn't only work by forcing water out and forcing particles together.

For homework, please describe a hand sample of sandstone and a hand sample of fossiliferous limestone. Can you discern what is holding the sand grains together? Can you discern what is holding the fossils in the limestone together?

ChordatesLegacy · Mar 20, 2008

RobertByers said:
Private study but still study.
The missoula flood happened at the end of the ice age so about1400 B.C. The basaly , as this creationist sees it, happened about 1800 b.c. I see the whole spine of the new world suddenly exploding with volcanoes and probably this is what caused the ice age which lasted some 400 years. The clues are in the fauna fossils. The basalt and company happened when these or those fossils types were in North America etc. The fossils are post flood. I'm taking however that these basalt flows are after the k-t boundary as the poster said here.
Many creationists see these areas as happening during the flood but my measure are the fauna fossils.
Rob byers

Private study but still study.

Really what books on geology have you read?

The missoula flood happened at the end of the ice age so about1400 B.C.

Wrong we are still in an Ice Age, I thing you are referring to the end of the last glacial period ~11000 years ago.

The basaly , as this creationist sees it, happened about 1800 b.c. I see the whole spine of the new world suddenly exploding with volcanoes and probably this is what caused the ice age which lasted some 400 years.

Whats the spine of the new world?

Immense volcanic eruptions (Large Igneous Provinces) do occur from time to time, but all the evidence proves that this has not occurred in millions of years.

The clues are in the fauna fossils. The basalt and company happened when these or those fossils types were in North America etc. The fossils are post flood. I'm taking however that these basalt flows are after the k-t boundary as the poster said here.

Wrong in so many ways for such a small statement: As an example the KT boundary world wide is defined by an iridium anomaly, this anomaly is located in the centre of the Deccan Traps which were subaerial in nature i.e. NOT UNDER WATER

Many creationists see these areas as happening during the flood but my measure are the fauna fossils.
Rob byers

I do not understand this sentence at all, but the fossil record does not, I repeat does not provide any evidence for a global flood.

dlamberth · Mar 20, 2008

RobertByers said:
Private study but still study.
The missoula flood happened at the end of the ice age so about1400 B.C. The basaly , as this creationist sees it, happened about 1800 b.c. I see the whole spine of the new world suddenly exploding with volcanoes and probably this is what caused the ice age which lasted some 400 years. The clues are in the fauna fossils. The basalt and company happened when these or those fossils types were in North America etc. The fossils are post flood. I'm taking however that these basalt flows are after the k-t boundary as the poster said here.
Many creationists see these areas as happening during the flood but my measure are the fauna fossils.
Rob byers

I'm confused....your saying that the Columbia River Basalts erupted when? And the eruptions lasting how long?

And the fossil record is related to what? What fossil's are you alluding to?

.

dlamberth · Mar 20, 2008

Baggins said:
I imagine the basalts you are describing have been dated, and I doubt they all date to 1800ce.

They have been dated. There were many flows. Some have been dated as long as 16 million years ago with progressive younger flows on top of older ones.

.

RobertByers · Mar 22, 2008

Molal said:
Robert,

You know for a fact, that pressure alone does not turn sediments into rock. Deep sea sediments, (known as oozes) are extracted with frequency from the abyssal plains (3-4 Km depth). At this depth, the oozes are wet sediment - similar in consistency to corn starch in water. Sediments extracted from the marianas trench (8-10 Km depth) are also wet, runny sediments.

So, we know that a column water of at least 10 Km will not lithify sediment. We also know that a moving column of water will not lithify sediment. Take a garden hose and place it on sand, the moving water will erode the sand - check out the dewatering channels on the beach. In addition, you should view the imagery of hyper viscose water (sediment laidened or hypersaline) flows that erode the abyssal plain sediments and/or the continental shelf sediments.

All this negates your assertion that a moving column of water lithifies sediment.

In addition (if that wasn't enough), lithification doesn't only work by forcing water out and forcing particles together.

For homework, please describe a hand sample of sandstone and a hand sample of fossiliferous limestone. Can you discern what is holding the sand grains together? Can you discern what is holding the fossils in the limestone together?

The conditions during the flood year can't be duplicated. Simply great pressure, I believe from separatind continents, was released and smashed into everything. The water or the water with sediment or some other combination easily pressurized the sediment into rock of different sorts here or there.
Pressurizing with heat is how sediment is turned into rock according to geology today. Just a long time with great weight.
We say the exact same method or somewhat the same did it instantly.
Neither one of us can test our hypothesis.
Yet our idea fits better what is observed. Likewise faauna/flora that was caught up in the sediment is now fossils in the rock.
You can't say there wasn't enough pressure because the pressure we suggest would be greater then the pressure you suggest for your idea.
Rob byers

RobertByers · Mar 22, 2008

dlamberth said:
I'm confused....your saying that the Columbia River Basalts erupted when? And the eruptions lasting how long?

And the fossil record is related to what? What fossil's are you alluding to?

.

If these basalts are the ones I'm thinking of then they erupted sometime around 1800B.C.

I date events by the fossils within what is fossilized during the impact of the eruptions.
If its a mammal world then its post flood. If its a dino world its pre-flood.
For example the florissant (sp) fossil grounds I date by looking at the insects etc and determine it was a post flood world. The process for their fossilization therefore was a local post flood event.
Rob Byers

lemmings · Mar 22, 2008

The conditions during the flood year can't be duplicated.

The pressures can be duplicated and exist at oceanic trenches.

The water or the water with sediment or some other combination easily pressurized the sediment into rock of different sorts here or there.

The 7 deepest oceanic trenches are all deeper than 30,000 feet. This means that the pressures at the bottoms are identical to those at the surface during the Flood. Yet, sediment does not instantly turn into rock at these depths. That kind of destroys the whole water makes rock theory doesn’t it?

Neither one of us can test our hypothesis.

I just gave you locations on the planet Earth where you can test your hypothesis. These locations have disproven your hypothesis.
Our theory can be tested in a lab by subjecting sediment to extreme pressures. In case you aren’t aware, we have been able to manufacture diamonds for several decades now using heat and pressure.

Yet our idea fits better what is observed.

Nope, your idea was disproven quite easily.

You can't say there wasn't enough pressure because the pressure we suggest would be greater then the pressure you suggest for your idea.

The pressures that you are suggesting are only 100MPa, a mere thousand times atmospheric pressure.
The pressures necessary to form artificial diamonds is over 50 times greater than this.

Baggins · Mar 22, 2008

RobertByers said:
The conditions during the flood year can't be duplicated.

How very convenient, also, in that case unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

In short with that very sentence you lose in a debate about the science of the creation of the Grand Canyon.

You are back to: I believe without evidence that......

and I for one find that completely hilarious.

We have evidence, we have models that are testable and repeatable, that is why most of the world accepts the scientific explanation.

Baggins · Mar 22, 2008

RobertByers said:
If these basalts are the ones I'm thinking of then they erupted sometime around 1800B.C.

Some one has already posted that they date to multiple periods that start at 18 million years ago.

This is direct dating evidence from isotopic dating methods, to deny them you have to deny that nuclear physics, as a science, is correct. Which you will now no doubt do as it is better to deny reality than change your mind about something right?

Your only other option would be to deny the uniformitarianism of isotopic decay over the last 18 million years, and in doing that you will fall straight into my Oklo elephant trap

Baggins · Mar 22, 2008

RobertByers said:
I date events by the fossils within what is fossilized during the impact of the eruptions.
If its a mammal world then its post flood. If its a dino world its pre-flood.
For example the florissant (sp) fossil grounds I date by looking at the insects etc and determine it was a post flood world. The process for their fossilization therefore was a local post flood event.
Rob Byers

I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that you have never held a fossil from this group of rocks in your hand and studied it.

Further more I'll suggest that you wouldn't know a fossil if it bit you on the posterior

Where exactly have you undertaken palaeontological field work and under whose guidence?

juvenissun · Mar 22, 2008

lemmings said:
Do Creationists wish to refute?

Of course. The worry is that you can not take it.

What if I say the ages are related to the time of cave formation, but not related to the Grand Canyon at all?

Split Rock · Mar 22, 2008

RobertByers said:
The conditions during the flood year can't be duplicated.

Yeah, yeah. The Flood cannot be duplicated, therefore the Flood could do anything... right?

RobertByers said:
Simply great pressure, I believe from separatind continents, was released and smashed into everything.

Show us how this happened.

RobertByers said:
The water or the water with sediment or some other combination easily pressurized the sediment into rock of different sorts here or there.

Instantaneously, like you have asserted?

RobertByers said:
Pressurizing with heat is how sediment is turned into rock according to geology today. Just a long time with great weight.

Which you claim is bogus.

RobertByers said:
We say the exact same method or somewhat the same did it instantly.

Wouldn't that also be bogus then? Show us how rock forms instantly.

RobertByers said:
Neither one of us can test our hypothesis.

You cannot, but real geologists have. I love this creationist "logic." Everything we know in science is "just an opinion" and "we cannot prove it and neither can you." Therefore, each "hypothesis" is as good as the other... right? WRONG!

RobertByers said:
Yet our idea fits better what is observed.

On what planet? Certainly not Earth.

RobertByers said:
Likewise faauna/flora that was caught up in the sediment is now fossils in the rock.

Explain the distribution.

RobertByers said:
You can't say there wasn't enough pressure because the pressure we suggest would be greater then the pressure you suggest for your idea.
Rob byers

Oh yes we can, because in your "model" rock is created "instantly." In the real model, it is not.

Baggins · Mar 23, 2008

juvenissun said:
What if I say the ages are related to the time of cave formation, but not related to the Grand Canyon at all?

What if I say; that as your claims are without evidence they are as compelling as if you'd claimed you have faeries at the bottom of your garden?

Molal · Mar 23, 2008

juvenissun said:
Of course. The worry is that you can not take it.

What if I say the ages are related to the time of cave formation, but not related to the Grand Canyon at all?

What if I were to ask you, YET AGAIN, for evidence to support your assertions.

So, pony up.

AintNoMonkey · Mar 23, 2008

Baggins said:
What if I say; that as your claims are without evidence they are as compelling as if you'd claimed you have faeries at the bottom of your garden?

Cite your source, buddy.

Douglas Adams is offended.

Wired: How to Date the Grand Canyon: Go With the Flow

Regular Member

Conflation of Blathers

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Regular Member

Regular Member

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Conflation of Blathers

Senior Veteran

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency