Summations Only

Your ponderings are interesting, but all I wanted you to do was recognize that all the strata were laid down before any of the canyons, fault lines, magma dike etc. occurred.

In what universe Faith?Water sorts deposits by size and density per Stoke's Law ... not by magic.Thus you get gravel and sand deposits first silt later and clay after that -- it the water is still enough (and still enough is slower the finer the particle size) and if the water is not still enough for settling it keeps the particles in suspension.Thus when a river enters a lake or ocean the flow spreads out, and as it spreads out the flow slows down, boulders are deposited, then gravel then sand then silt then clayThat is how water sorts sediments, Faith. No Faith, there are plenty of other reasons for the sediments being distributed the way they are -- processes that can actually be observed today are sufficient to explain what is seen in the sediment layers of the past, no magic water needed.But it is the only answer for you in order to make the evidence of reality warp into your fantasy -- another reason your fantasy is warped and not real. Why Faith? The scientific explanation is really quite simple: those animals and plants lived at the time the sediment was forming, and this can be verified by finding similar fossils in similar age deposits. This has been done. This is what develops "index fossils" in science.We can also look at successive layers and watch as the plants and animals evolve into the ones around us today, no magic necessary, just ordinary every day processes. Simply because ancestors are older, so they should be found in older sediments, just as their offspring should be found in younger sediments.It's the Law of Superposition again.article 8There is a 65 million year record that is virtually complete with every species of forams and showing their evolution from older lower species to younger higher species.

quote:

---

Darwin termed the process gradualism, a theory that invokes the slow accumulation of small evolutionary changes over a large period of time, as a result of the pressures of natural selection. What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work. We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time.

---

You can download charts of them here -- listed by age and depths
Page not found - Paleo Data, a PetroStrat Company - Biostratigraphy Services
Page not found - Paleo Data, a PetroStrat Company - Biostratigraphy Services During any one time there would be complete ecosystems, each living organism evolving in its own way. There are only so many organisms alive at any one time Faith. Look at the life around you today -- why is there this odd and rather limited specificity today? Your incredulity is amusing Why?Why should they not be in older layers?A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus Pelycodus ralstoni is the ancestor species of Pelycodus trigonodus which is the ancestor of Pelycodus jarrovii which is the ancestor of Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus ... the fossils are found at different depths according to age (law of superposition) and you can see the transitions over time, including a speciation event at the top.Layers are like snapshots going back in timeOr is your understanding of evolution really that poor.Enjoy

You've been arguing for far more than that. E.g. your claim that the fluddde carved the GC. Impossible for ever so man reasons, especially (IMHO) the meanders that you are so scared of acknowledging or addressing.

No Faith -- what is delusional is your refusal to look at the finer details that show erosion and life on the surfaces of or in each of these layers. Disturbances don't have to be major events for the surfaces to be affected. What is delusional is thinking that fine sediments can be deposited on top of coarse sediments by a single event. What is delusional is ignoring all the other evidence of age and formation, from the meandering of the canyon as a whole to the incised meandering of the river within the canyon, to the evidence of speleothems showing not just great age but different ages at different locations and depths -- evidence that is only consistent the canyon developing over long periods of time ... or with a joker god who tricks you ... Tilted and eroded and the eroded material carried away leaving a relatively flat surface on which new deposits were laid. A process that is observed elsewhere in many places.Your fantasy does not answer the question of where the material went, nor does it reflect any process that is occurring in the world. As has been pointed out on several occasions there are layers that were deposited in marine environments and layers that were deposited in terrestrial environments, that these layers were uplifted, subsided, uplifted, subsided, uplifted etc etc etc. As has been noted several times such activity covered large areas that were moved up and down as whole units. The evidence is in the layers, and readily seen if one removes the myopic blurred glasses and gets closer than a mile from the rock.It may seem improbable that such large areas are moved whole and complete, but this is really just a small portion of the surface of the earth.There are also disturbances that have occurred after the canyon was well developed, but not yet in its current level, including volcanic and earthquake activity ... such as the volcanic dams that blocked the incised river and were eroded away and left high on the canyon walls as the river continued to erode into the uplifting deposits below the level of the bottom of these dams. They occurred after the meanders were well incised into the rock. Your "enemies" Faith are your convictions, not the people who are trying to help you.They are of your making.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

I think you could have that as a reasonable starting point for the central sections and particularly the canyon itself. Not so the additional layers to the left which could be volcanic - though that's easily checked. Is anyone saying that the layers were put down *after* the canyon was formed?I really don't see what point you think you're making by saying that a small section of the earth's surface hasn't been disturbed, particularly when you can see evidence of fracturing on either side and lifting underneath.

Hi Faith, thanks for the replies. This misconception comes from the creationist PRATT that the geological column does not exist anywhere in the world. That if the earth was old and sediment was laid down over millions of years that we should see all the layers stacked in one place. But that's nonsense. Just think about where layers are being formed. Here in Michigan there are currently no geological layers being laid down except withing the Great Lakes themselves, so we are missing the entire Recent Epoch. In fact, the last glacier scraped off huge amounts of rock layers and deposited them south of here. So we are missing those layers too.However, with a global flood we would expect that layers would be fairly well distributed across the whole earth. And we would expect the layers to be sorted from coarse to fine; perhaps not perfectly sorted as in the jar experiment I mentioned way back in Message 85 (due to currents etc...), but the sorting would be in that relative order. See, this makes no sense what-so-ever. The flood waters stripped off the land, kept those sediments packaged together, moved them around the world, waited for the proper time for other deposits to get laid down, and then dropped them off still all kept together so as to look like they were from a terrestrial environment. Have you ever been to Iowa? or Kansas? or any of the central plains states? What does the erosional features look like there? Catastrophic or pretty much non-existent? Why do we expect catastrophic erosion everywhere?HBD

The word "apparently" suggests that that is the way things "appear".According to the way things appear - i.e. through observation in the present, water can not sort everything. For example, water can not sort footprints into the strata. Water sorting is only one effect that does appear. it is not enough to explain everything that appears.I think what you meant to say was, "Wishfully the water sorted things, wishfully water is capable of doing that."

Do you not think that these kind of geological forms exist anywhere else in the world? The GC is unique because these forms have been exposed by a unique sequence of events. It seems to me that if a great flood could lay down all these layers and the carve it up to the extent that it did, then we should see structures like this all over the world. The flood waters would be laying down sediment all over the world and then running off in great torrents as much in Africa, South America, Asia, etc. Why would the processes that formed the GC be different that the forces that were at work in the rest of the world? That observation is recognized. The layers were put down and then cut through. But your wrong that OE doesn't have an explanation for it... and one that does not violate the laws of physics. You just refuse to accept it. Ok, I admit, the idea that the super group was an enormous mountain chain that was subsequently eroded away gives me pause too. However, there is supposed to be 500 - 800 million years between Visnu Schist and the Bass limestone, which is a very, very long time. A lot can happen in 500 million years. I don't think there is much know about this unconformity, so speculation may be an appropriate term to use here. However, we do know mountain ranges get eroded down, compare the Appalachians to the Rockies or the Himalayas. The Appalachians are supposed to be 400 million years older than the Rockies and are about 1/2 the size; rounded rather than jagged, etc.HBD

Not so much, sorry. There is a clear distinction between speculation and basing conclusions on evidence. Of course, there is uncertainty when dealing with events that happened long, long ago, but speculation either does not have enough information to make an inform conclusion or ignores that evidence. Basing conclusions on evidence means studying ALL available evidence and comparing it to processes that are known to happen (in labs or in nature) and THEN drawing conclusions. Another important factor of evidence based conclusions is that when new evidence is presented, the conclusions also change; they cannot be held to dogmatically (although sometimes it may take a while for the change). What type of deposit would you expect to be the FIRST deposit to be laid down after the flood (say on day 41 after the rain and turbulence subside) and why? How is sediment deposited, Faith? Have you ever been to a place where sediment is being actively deposited? Have you read anything written by someone who has actually studied these areas? This stuff is pretty much "common knowledge" now-a-days. Again, how could this possibly work? How could this whole terrestrial ecosystem be transported by flood waters and deposited as an intact unit? It is impossible. There needs to be some mechanism that can do this type of "sorting." There is no such mechanism that exists. So, you need to posit divine intervention in the sorting of the layers - one that creates a deceptive picture of the history of the earth that has led countless millions of people astray from a "Biblical Christian" perspective, even devout and dedicated Christians such as me who do believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. Why would he do that? Why would he not just let the layers sort naturally so that no one would be led astray by the actual evidence. And no, the evidence does NOT support a global flood depositing the GC it is only the DENIAL of evidence that can support that proposition. I think this illustrates that scientists are willing to admit uncertainties in their theories. How the Colorado came to find its current course is still debated and there is evidence that supports both scenarios. Sorry, but no not at all.HBD

I for one will recognize that all the strata were laid down before the canyon was carved and the fault lines created and magma dikes injected. So you made your point there ... so what?And I just want you to recognize that the great flood did not create the canyon, either laying down the foundational sediment or carving the canyon itself. That idea is based on more impossibilities than a reasonable mind can accept. If you still want to cling to the idea of a great flood, fine ... but the GC is not the evidence you are looking for.HBD

It really does. That is what the law of superposition tells us. You say you're aware of it, but do you dispute it or not? Because if you don't this... ...makes no sense. The order of the layering is the product of the order in which they were deposited. Very simple. Perhaps you could clarify your objections to the law of superposition if you have any (as the above quote implies). I don't see how the thickness of the rock record bears on the issue of their depositional order. The strata could be stacked to any height at all and it wouldn't alter the fact that the lower strata were deposited first.Unless you have some way of disproving the law of superposition, the fact that we find an untransported dinosaur sitting on its nest in a terrestrial environment (nowhere near the bottom of the record as it should be if t were buried at the start of the Flood) cannot be accounted for by your model. I think I have pointed this out elsewhere, but we see analogous situations with modern animals. Here you can read a rater florid description of a mass death of caribou crossing a flooded river in 1984.

quote:

---

At least 9,604 caribou (by official count as of Sunday) and probably more than 10,000 died at Limestone Falls

---

Note that while the scale of this disaster was unprecedented, large numbers of deaths were in fact common:

quote:

---

Caribou have always died at Limestone Falls; perhaps 50 a year would perish there, maybe 100 or even 500 would drown when the summer rains had been particularly heavy.

---

And similar mass deaths are common for herds of wildebeest crossing rivers in flood. Click through these images to see what happens when large numbers of otherwise competent swimmers try to cross together. When these mass death assemblages are buried by sediment, then you have the potential to get massive fossil bonebeds as seen in the fossil record. You have said at some point that you think the canyon was initially carved out by the catastrophic deluge from the Flood. Your phrasing here implies that at the beginning of the canyon's creation, the water was still part of a high-volume, high-energy flow. Please clarify what you think happened. Because the initial torrent you have said carved the canyon could not produce the meandering course. Meanders are the product of a river winding its way across a flattish landscape, not a raging torrent gradually slowing down and decreasing in volume. This description of events should mean that the majority of the GC should be a straight channel with meandering incision lower down. But of course we see that the whole canyon meanders from top to bottom.

Interesting charts! Those are used primarily for oil exploration, are they not?One of the reasons that creationists tend to reject charts like this is that they have dates associated with them. They believe that a particular foram is dated by the rock it is in and then inserted into the geological column according to the date, giving the impression of circular reasoning. But the convincing thing about sequences like these is that they can be established without assigning dates to them or the layers they are in. So it doesn't matter if they were laid down over 4 thousand or 4 billion years, the sequence is what's important.The layers can then be named based on the fossil assemblages found within those layers. Still no assumption of ages, old or young. And then, surprisingly, the relative sequences are consistent wherever you go in the world.Another thing to note is that these sequences were worked out before Darwin even proposed the ToE, so no assumption of evolution. The only assumption involved is that layers on top were laid down after layers underneath them.BTW, I know you know this, I am mentioning it for the benefit of others who might have a different idea of what makes an index fossil. Maybe it would be nice to have chart without dates, that only associates fossil assemblages with a particular geological layer. That might help with misconceptions (although probably not since denial knows no boundaries).HBD

yep.and you can find similar for diatoms EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : +

Then please submit a photo or research by anyone as evidence for your theory that show these lithified mudslide deposits containing plant and animal remains. They should be fairly easy to find on top of the Vishnu, correct? Yes we do. In fact, our explanations don't require ignoring 99% of the available data and even work to describe what is happening today. Again, please show evidence of these mudslides. If you can't, this is pure unfounded speculation.And you know what? I'm good with unfounded speculation when it comes to geology. That's how we move forward. In fact, the best part of my job is coming up with crazy theories to explain our geologic mysteries. However, in the end, when we go out there to look for the evidence and don't find it, we have to put that theory on the back burner or give it up entirely (depending on the level of research) and move onto ones that are supported by the field evidence.In the meantime, your unfounded speculation cannot be used as evidence and therefore, by default, does not fit the Flood model "rather well."Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Considering that the strata from the base of the Bass Ls. to the top of the Kaibab Ls. represents several hundred million years, it is highly unlikely that none of those strata were affected by faulting prior to it all having been laid down.The large-scale structures we see today, many of which control the path of fluvial carving, are possibly ancient faults that could have existed since before the Vishnu Schist/Zoroaster Granite. Some are undoubtedly younger than the basement rocks, but once you break the crust, you form a zone of weakness that will break and re-activate with continued crustal deformation.Unless someone has actually looked into the structures in the Grand Canyon, which I don't recall reading here, I would not draw the above conclusion regarding them quite yet.Then we have the basaltic dikes cutting some units of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, so not all magmatic events happened after all the sediments were laid down. Though this may be a moot point as I cannot recall where Faith places the beginning of the Flood.