Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Sand does get transported in ocean water:Source of Beach Sand

I don't know why, that's why I said "for whatever reason."

I have been meaning to get back to the Flood thread but keep getting distracted and actually forget about it at times too. But it may yet happen.For now: I defy anyone to find where I said ROCKS form by evaporation. The discussion originated with the idea that the strata would have been stable enough not to slump when the canyon was cut through it. My argument has been that they would have been HARD enough not to slump, because the weight of the strata would have compressed them sufficiently for that. I also claimed somewhere that simply drying the sediments would harden them, and that would be all I had in mind. People kept saying that it takes a long time to lithify and I didn't have an interest in arguing that point really, all I cared about was that they were hard enough not to slump when cut through. Then somebody came along and showed that in fact lithification, meaning hardening with chemical cementation can occur a lot faster than was being claimed, also that compaction itself is a major element in rock formation. Again, I DON'T CARE. My interest was only in their being hard enough to maintain their shape and stability when carved and cut, which I believe did get established.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As Arach said, offspring differ from parents and that is the basis for evolution right there. Certainly if any group of people or animals gets isolated for any period of time, their descendants will develop a characteristic appearance that differs from the main population they left. The reason there are many different varieties or breeds or races of people and animals is due to this ordinary fact of genetic transmission.And such varieties are also found in the fossil record. Take the trilobites: there are different varieties in different strata, which are interpreted to be evolution up the supposed time scale, but all they really are is varieties that lived at the same time, which reflects what happens all the time with living species. There are something like three varieties or races or breeds of wildebeests that occupy different geographic areas. All that happened is that different traits occur in different genetic frequencies in the different groups because of their being isolated from one another and inbreeding within their own genetic pool. This is clearly what happened with the different varieties of animals found in the fossil record.All this is of course MICROevolution, or the expected natural variation within a Species or Kind, which has been well known for millennia. You simply have lots of races of trilobites reflected there, no evolution upward, just standard microevolution through isolation.NOT to expect change over a few thousand years within Species is what would be odd, Cuvier notwithstanding, because the various people groups and animal groups naturally disperse geographically over time and become isolated breeding pools unto themselves.That would be where we should expect the greatest changes, but even the change from generation to generation due to sexual recombination ought to produce identifiable change over a few thousand years.It wouldn't be on a scale that would make mummies differ from living human beings though.

No, what I said was: I was contrastinc drying with compression, as having been discussed separately, that's all.

What?

But there was no contradiction as I tried to explain.As I said, I did NOT say ROCKS formed by drying. Or evaporation. I was trying to avoid the word "ROCKS" (in the sense of LITHIFIED ROCKS, which I had come to accept is a technical term requiring chemical cementation}. Evaporation or drying is of course the same thing. I said only "mud dries, clay dries," and I many times said I was talking about sufficient hardness to maintain stability, which is brought about by drying /evaporation /compaction /compression etc etc etc., and was specifically trying to avoid the concept of ROCKS or LITHIFICATION.You seem to be trying to hold me to a very specific meaning I did not intend. And there was no contradiction. You just seem to be intent on finding something to find fault with which requires you to make up things I did not say.

There were no post-Flood STRATA.

Sorry, you've lost me. I don't know what you are saying and I don't know what point you think you are making.

Yes, expulsion of water is what I would expect from the compression of the strata by the weight. But it would have the effect of drying them nevertheless, they'd have less water in them.I don't know why what was really a very simple concept is becoming such a big deal. The context was whether the walls of the canyon would slump, I figure they wouldn't because water would have been pressed out of them. They would therefore not have been sloppy wet which is when one would expect them to slump. I used examples from making mud pies as a child and from working with clay. Both slump when too wet, but both hold their shape when damp but not completely dried out, in fact at that degree of dampness both can be cut or carved quite neatly without any distortion.ABE: The concept of lithification by cementation is not what I was talking about but people started making a big deal out of it. Then it turned out that really often doesn't take a lot of time anyway, and I postulated that the chemicals necessary to lithification were probably readily available in the recently Flood-deposited stack of sediments.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems obvious enough, but what's your point and why are you talking about a river?

As I understand it, those strata are not the same thing as the geologic column, not different sediments for one thing.

Are you talking about the Supergroup / The Great Unconformity or some other angular unconformity as well? Most creationists accept that those rocks were already there before the Flood so that there is no issue about their being wet at all.I've argued that they were formed at the same time the canyon was cut, but in that case they never would have been exposed or weathered at all, but simply have been the lowest part of the whole stack. That low in the stack would mean they were under great pressure from the weight above, and the heat from the volcano beneath would certainly have made them less than wet. If you want to talk about this we should move it to the Flood thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are going to have to quote me. I don't trust a thing you say about what you think I said.I don't recall EVER saying the strata were "SOFT," and that's not the same thing as "incompletely lithified." The ones ABOVE the Kaibab would have been softER than those below, though still under enough weight to not be really soft, and the very uppermost the softest of all, so that they should have broken up fairly readily in rushing water. BUT STILL I WOULDN'T CALL ANY OF IT "SOFT." The strata BELOW the Kaibab should have been pretty hard from the weight already. In any case your posts to me have been so irritatingly irrelevant and unrelated to anything I was saying I don't expect anything I say to get across to you anyway. I don't want to have to talk to you at all and I wish you'd just go away. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You didn't read the whole post. I say they created ALL the strata, most creationists don't. But on my scenario there would have been no exposure of the angular unconformity and no weathering.