Summations Only

Well, yes, that's what one should do when one makes assertions. No. All we see is your assertion that it 'must'a been'. Where do you get this number of 'billions of years'? The rocks aren't even that old. Why is that? According to whom?

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? How do you manage to lithify chalk beds to stand hundreds of feet high in one year? What was above the chalk?

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 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.

That's not the point. The point is that time and burial are required to form competent rock. What depth is that? 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.

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? Please explain.Why not?

So, how were chalk beds deposited during a flood?Please explain.

Good illustration. Here is a real life tepui on the Guyana Shield. These rocks are harder and older (Precambrian) and make the monuments of Monument Valley look puny. Much more water here, of course, and check out the talus deposits. These features are weathering out of a huge plateau referred to as the Grand Sabana in Venezuela.

And the problem with that is what?Besides, we know that there were substantial erosional events below the Unkar, below the Chuar and below the Tapeats.What are you avoiding them? Explain thsi evidence? Why is it evidence? And why MUST there be erosion at any given point in time? Please give us an explanation other than your personal prejudice. Why can we not have a long period of relative stability?Or is that just your opinion? What is it based on?

Of course.That was your early brainwashing.This truth was revealed to you. You did not arrive at this conclusion through careful observation and study.So this is your evidence? Arbitrary acceptance?

And what a real scientist would do is go out and look for supporting evidence.For YECs, it means repeating the same assertions over and over until everyone's eyes glaze over.

And where would all of those sediments come from in a global flood?

But the professional creationists have told her otherwise."Widespread flat layers are diagnostic of flood deposition."No explanation necessary. It's obvious, after all...

Good, then you can explain why extensive flat strata indicate a flood. What is your reasoning?To avoid the one-line response, I will explain. I know of nothing in all of geology that says a formation is somehow, intrinsically limited in extent. As long as the depositional environment is broad, then the rocks deposited can be extensive. One only need to look at the near continental extent of the Sahara Desert to refute this notion.I also know of no rule that any particlular sequence of rocks must be disrupted over any length of time. On a stable continental platform, there is no reason to say the deformation must occur everywhere in a billion year time period. So you are not discussing just the Paleozoic system in the Grand Canyon? I thought you were confining yourself to the Cambrian to Permian section of the GC.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Is that what you believe?Frankly, it's kind of hard for me to believe that the oceans ever had any base other than oceanic crust. Then, it's hard to believe that the oceanic crust had the same density so as to have the same elevation position as continental crust.That would be unless the continents themselves formed during your flood, which (literally) doesn't hold water since people ostensibly lived on continents prior to that flood.What would be the cause for the ocean basins to subside and do it so quickly that runoff from the continents would be so erosive as you indicate?Basically, I'm saying that if you adhere to this position, you have a lot of explaining to do.