Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 541 of 1304 (731820)
06-30-2014 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 538 by Faith
06-30-2014 4:21 PM


quote:
Of course extrapolating backwards would solve the problem, quite easily of course, because it's basically stacking the deck
But in the absence of other evidence it is the most sensible approach. Much more so than assuming that erosion started as soon as the youngest surviving rock was deposited (which really IS an attempt to stack the deck).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 4:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by Percy, posted 06-30-2014 5:15 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 559 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 7:27 PM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 542 of 1304 (731821)
06-30-2014 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Faith
06-30-2014 4:45 PM


Erosion of an Entire Valley
Hi Faith,
Here's an image showing how regions like Monument Valley form:
This is from Geologic Framework of Arizona, page 30.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 4:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 7:15 PM Percy has replied
 Message 561 by edge, posted 06-30-2014 7:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 543 of 1304 (731822)
06-30-2014 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by PaulK
06-30-2014 4:56 PM


PaulK writes:
Much more so than assuming that erosion started as soon as the youngest surviving rock was deposited (which really IS an attempt to stack the deck).
You're too kind. To me it seems more like fantasy. Sediment, not rock, gets deposited, and before sediments can become rock they must first be deeply buried and compacted. Then before they can be eroded they must become exposed at the surface again. Long time periods are required.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2014 4:56 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 6:53 PM Percy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 544 of 1304 (731824)
06-30-2014 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:57 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
Just have to comment again about how such formations -- a stack of layers exposed by massive erosion -- show that the whole stack was in place before the massive erosion took place.
Yes, we live in a very erosive period of geological time. I've heard it called "geocratic", meaning that a lot of land is above sea level. As such, it is subject to erosion. Most landforms you see on earth today are caused by erosion. There are exceptions to this rule, however, such as Hawaii (the island) and the Modoc Plateau.
This is true of the Grand Canyon where all the strata are there from Tapeats to Kaibab before the canyon itself was cut.
Actually, as we have discussed, there are examples of erosional discontinuities within the sequence you mention.
It's true of the Grand Staircase where all the strata are there from Kaibab to Claron before the cliffs and canyons of the "stairs" wre cut. And it's true of the hoodoos of the Claron where the layers that formed them were all in place before the hoodoos themselves were sculpted. And it's true of Monument Valley where all the strata of which the monuments are composed had to have been in place for thousands of square miles before massive erosion took all of it away except the monuments themselves.
Well, it was massive but it occurred over millions of years, millions of events.
I keep pointing this out but its implications don't seem to be getting across very well.
Well, there's no real point to it. Basically, you are saying that the erosion occurred at only one event in a short period of time. There is no evidence to support this.
It's the same point I was trying to make by pointing out the lack of tectonic disturbance or SERIOUS erosion to he strata visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon until after all of the strata were laid down in that area from the bottom of the canyon to the top of the Grand Staircase. None of that massive erosion happened until after that entire stack to a depth of at least two miles was laid down.
Not really. We know the the Vishnu rocks were eroded and then there was erosion during the GC Supergroup and then, of course, at the Great Unconformity upon which the Tapeats lies. So we know that there were at least 4 major events and several more minor ones with little relief.
In the movie I'm reminded of the same point.
I fail to see how the movie has any effect on geological interpretation.
ooks to me like a massive amount of water washed around those formations and washed away all the strata that had to have been there at one time, leaving those monuments, buttes, bumps, hills, whatever they are.
Sure, over millions of years. Even in the desert climate that would be a lot of flash floods.
Just as it looks like a massive amount of water washed away the strata above the Kaibab rim of the Grand Canyon and formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase.
Sure, over millions of years.
The thing is the laying down of the strata supposedly occurred over hundreds of millions of years and yet ONLY after all that was in place did this massive erosion occur. And yet that fact is dismissed as nothing unusual?
What is unusual about it? There are plenty of continuous sections all over the world. It's just that many of them have not been uplifted like the Colorado Plateau.
I don't care if you want to put your varves and your tree rings and your radiometric dating on your side of the evidence ledger for now. But this fact has to go on the Flood side of the evidence ledger.
So, a fact is something that you perceive? I didn't notice that in the definition of 'fact'...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 7:33 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 545 of 1304 (731825)
06-30-2014 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Faith
06-28-2014 8:05 AM


The MASSIVE erosion of the entire stack of layers all at one time ...
Why is it at one time? What is your evidence, other than your own credence.
... is something else entirely and it's fantastic evidence against the Old Earth and for the Young Earth and for the receding Flood as the source of the massive erosion.
What makes it a massive flood?
I have seen floods in the desert and they are very erosive. I don't see the need for one massive flood.
What is your diagnostic evidence?
Since this is such fantastic evidence ...
Evidence according to whom?
... it calls all the OE dating into question. And from what you've written here I have to suppose that you don't know what I'm talking about.
Unfortunately, we do know what you are talking about, but you have not provided diagnostic evidence for a flood origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 8:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 546 of 1304 (731826)
06-30-2014 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by Faith
06-28-2014 11:44 AM


I'm even being asked to "support my claim" ...
Well, yes, that's what one should do when one makes assertions.
when it's very well supported in that post.
No. All we see is your assertion that it 'must'a been'.
So the erosion of the monument is too much for 4300 years? That's pretty funny. It's certainly way too little for a couple billion years.
Where do you get this number of 'billions of years'? The rocks aren't even that old.
The whole monument should have been dissolved into dust by now.
Why is that? According to whom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 11:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 7:25 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 547 of 1304 (731828)
06-30-2014 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by Faith
06-29-2014 2:47 PM


When the Flood waters receded. That's what formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase, which include the cliffs from which the hoodoos were shaped.
If you are going to say this, you should have some evidence of an impounding feature. What is your dam?
Otherwise, why did the waters recede rapidly?
Uh huh, but on Flood timing the time is quite short. The layers were laid down by the Flood waters. As the waters receded they broke up a lot of the upper strata leaving all kinds of interesting formations in the Southwest.
How do you manage to lithify chalk beds to stand hundreds of feet high in one year? What was above the chalk?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 2:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 7:24 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 548 of 1304 (731830)
06-30-2014 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by ringo
06-29-2014 3:46 PM


If it erodes 5 feet in ten thousand years and it's five feet in radius, we'd expect it to be gone in ten thousand years. We can extrapolate backwards to estimate how long it's been eroding. I don't know why you think you can tell that there "shouldn't" be any left. You don't know when it started eroding.
It seems that YEC doctrine requires all processes to be complete. Alternatively, they have not started. There is no way that we can see an intermediate product in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by ringo, posted 06-29-2014 3:46 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 549 of 1304 (731831)
06-30-2014 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Percy
06-29-2014 4:12 PM


Scree is exposed to weathering, which means things like wind, rain, temperature variations and freeze/thaw cycles. Even buried scree is vulnerable, though to a lesser degree, to weathering. Particles flake off the scree, water erodes and carry some away, grinding against other pieces of scree creates flakes, and over time each piece becoming smaller and smaller. The tiers upon which the scree rests are also subject to erosion, and buried scree eventually loses its supporting platform and falls to the next tier, eventually reaching the valley floor. The tiny particles that flake off the scree become the soil of the valley floor.
This is a good treatment of the topic. I would like to add that, from personal experience, these rocks are not all that hard. They are often very porous and cemented by clay and/or carbonate. When you walk around on these deserts, you see little but windblown sand derived from the breakdown of these sandstones. That sand ends up in the streambeds and eventually into local basins or the ocean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Percy, posted 06-29-2014 4:12 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 550 of 1304 (731832)
06-30-2014 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by Percy
06-30-2014 5:15 PM


Sediment, not rock, gets deposited, and before sediments can become rock they must first be deeply buried and compacted. Then before they can be eroded they must become exposed at the surface again. Long time periods are required.
All that's true but long periods are not required on Flood timing. It deposited the sediments miles deep, the great depth compacted them, the receding Flood waters eroded away various portions of the strata, exposing various formations -- cliffs, canyons, buttes, whatever -- which are then eroded by normal processes yearly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Percy, posted 06-30-2014 5:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by edge, posted 06-30-2014 6:57 PM Faith has replied
 Message 555 by jar, posted 06-30-2014 7:21 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 569 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2014 1:11 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 580 by Percy, posted 07-01-2014 7:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 551 of 1304 (731833)
06-30-2014 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by Faith
06-30-2014 6:53 PM


All that's true but long periods are not required on Flood timing.
That's not the point. The point is that time and burial are required to form competent rock.
It deposited the sediments miles deep, the great depth compacted them, ...
What depth is that?
... the receding Flood waters eroded away various portions of the strata, exposing various formations -- cliffs, canyons, buttes, whatever -- which are then eroded by normal processes yearly.
So, you say that the rocks lithified in one year to form hundred meter cliffs and yet they were soft enough to readily erode?
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote code.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 6:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 7:22 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 552 of 1304 (731834)
06-30-2014 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Faith
06-30-2014 4:45 PM


OK I get it, you're all assuming those monuments were bigger enough to have been eroding for tens of millions of years and still not disintegrated.
In fact, it was you who said that hoodoos are eroding out of cliffs that are composed of continuous material. As the hoodoos erode away, more are formed from the receding cliffs.
Is that rocket science?
Sigh. I look at them and fit them into a footprint that can't be as wide as the scree talus so I "know" they haven't been eroding that long.
Please explain.
Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 4:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 553 of 1304 (731835)
06-30-2014 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by Faith
06-29-2014 2:30 PM


But there is no reason whatever to suppose the erosion started recently enough for that to be the case. The fact that they wouldn't be here if it started when of course it did start, right after the cliffs were formed from which they were carved, simply proves that the OE figures are wrong.
So, how were chalk beds deposited during a flood?
Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 2:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 554 of 1304 (731836)
06-30-2014 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 542 by Percy
06-30-2014 5:09 PM


Re: Erosion of an Entire Valley
Sure, that will do for an OE theory about how it happened. Of course I prefer the Flood explanation which has the receding water draining more or less sheetwise across the surface but following any grooves that happen to develop and deepening them. If the surface is arched like that then the surface would form cracks as illustrated, and the water would of course run into those cracks and deepen them, cutting deeper grooves as more sediment, which is not yet rock, is dislodged, gradually carving out forms between the cracks but running sheetwise wherever the surface is more or less level until eventually we have the freestanding buttes which at that point are somewhat larger versions of the monuments we have now, and then they are eroded by weather for the next 4300 years until they are what we see today.
It works.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Percy, posted 06-30-2014 5:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by Percy, posted 07-01-2014 7:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 555 of 1304 (731838)
06-30-2014 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by Faith
06-30-2014 6:53 PM


more bullshit from Faith.
All that's true but long periods are not required on Flood timing. It deposited the sediments miles deep, the great depth compacted them, the receding Flood waters eroded away various portions of the strata, exposing various formations -- cliffs, canyons, buttes, whatever -- which are then eroded by normal processes yearly.
You keep repeating really stupid assertions like that but when asked to explain how your imaginary flood sorted the sediments you always just run away.
Is there any possibility you might EVER present the model, method or process that could do what you claim?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 6:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024