|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,454 Year: 6,711/9,624 Month: 51/238 Week: 51/22 Day: 6/12 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
I would also point out that that canyon looks a lot like a river drainage system.
But there is a bigger and more obvious problem with Faiths view. If the canyon was carved by the receding flood waters, how did it get buried ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
I know that you have no problem with these things. That does not mean that they are remotely sensible. How would a river drainage system form underground ? If the sediments were loose, how would a canyon form ? It makes no sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Well that pretty much confirms my thought - you wouldn't get a canyon. The material above, being unconsolidated and under pressure would hardly wait for a canyon to form before collapsing.
And that leaves aside the question of how you get the river drainage pattern - that makes sense for water flowing down from mountains or hills to join a river in a valley or canyon, but that scenario hardly applies without a solid surface - or the relative elevations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: And how would that produce the Grand Canyon as it exists today ? I cannot imagine it producing the meanders, for a start. In fact it seems odd that that would even produce a deep channel, rather than simply scouring the landscape.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
The Colorado river runs along the length of the canyon, so if we give it credit for those parts, that is the main body of the canyon.
And those meanders have to be in place before the canyon really starts to form. And the rock must be hard enough to prevent the normal outcome of the river "short circuiting" the meanders (which become "ox-bow lakes"). Obviously the rock must be hard for must of the cutting of the canyon which therefore must take a long time. ABE If that is not clear enough, the problem is simple. Since the meanders are in the canyon, not just the river, the force that produced the canyon must cut down, following the meanders. An erosive force that will quickly cut through rock is not enough - since that would tend to cut straight across the terrain. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: As we all see you have failed to understand the argument.
quote: Obviously you have completely managed to miss the point that the canyon itself meanders. Those meanders can't be cut "after" the canyon - they are the canyon. So much for your "NONSENSE!!" The rest of your musings fail to deal with the point, and are thus irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
Obviously that it was cut by a meandering river. Probably rather slowly.
As I stated you need a force that cuts down, following the meanders. Simply supposing a massive erosive force won't do because that would tend to cut across the meanders.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: If you are proposing that the Grand Canyon followed a different course when it was first cut I would like to know where that is. If not, the canyon was "first cut" following the meanders.
quote: Presumably you mean that you think I tell the truth only to contradict the things that you make up. Well, you are wrong. As for other interpretations - if it were that easy you would be presenting viable alternatives. And you aren't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
You could draw pictures but that would not change the fact that the canyon meanders. If it did not originally meander - and if it was anything like the present depth - then the original course should still be visible. If the meanders were present in the original cut my point stands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: That is rather a problem for your view, then.
quote: Then where is this "canyon proper" ? Why do you never answer that question ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
Redundant message hidden. --Admin
Duplicate post due to server issues
quote: when you say that the Grand Canyon was cut by water from the Flood I would assume that you meant pretty much all of it. Apparently you don't but you are being very unclear about what you do mean. Let us make it clear again. The Grand Canyon itself meanders - it has curves in it, like a river course. Are you singling out those sections and saying that they were cut by the river ? If so, why couldn't the river have cut the whole thing ?
quote: So, apparently the Grand Canyon we see today was carved by the river ? And the "canyon proper" is something else ? I keep asking you to explain what you mean by the "canyon proper" and you keep refusing to explain. Do you even know what you mean ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Hide content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: When you say that the Grand Canyon was cut by water from the Flood I would assume that you meant pretty much all of it. Apparently you don't but you are being very unclear about what you do mean. Let us make it clear again. The Grand Canyon itself meanders - it has curves in it, like a river course. Are you singling out those sections and saying that they were cut by the river ? If so, why couldn't the river have cut the whole thing ?
quote: So, apparently the Grand Canyon we see today was carved by the river ? And the "canyon proper" is something else ? I keep asking you to explain what you mean by the "canyon proper" and you keep refusing to explain. Do you even know what you mean ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: Wrong. You need to stop pretending that other people are to blame for your failures to communicate. Especially when the that failure seems to be a simple refusals to explain yourself. And I note that yet again you fail to explain what you mean by the "canyon proper"
quote: In fact I do deal with that possibility (second paragraph). And you might also note that even the section you quote is questioning, asking you to explain. And I might also suggest that asking you to explain is better than attributing a crazy view to you. Finally I will point out that if sections of the canyon are not attributable to your post-flood rush of waters then they certainly cannot be entirely responsible for the scale of the canyon.
quote: As others have already pointed out the width of the canyon is not explained by the river, but by subsequent erosion.
quote: But - and this is the point we coming back to - the meander is the canyon, at least at that point. So are you now saying that the river formed the canyon completely ? If it formed the meandering sections, and those sections link the canyon together then it is really hard to see how any other explanation makes sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
I notice an interesting admission in this post.
quote: Faith has often claimed that the order in the fossil record is an illusion. Now she says that it is useful information. Remember that the order is very strong evidence against the Flood - and we see at least one good reason why an honest working geologist might wish to convert from YEC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: Usually you just say that the order is an illusion. Which is a far different thing from proposing that the only reasonable explanation that we have for that order is an "illusion".
quote: I think that we can safely say that there is no realistic prospect of that occurring.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024