Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

Well, what could possibly be the explanation for the canyon itself meandering but that the water flowing through it did it, a LOT of water, not just a little river? Eh?ABE: There is only one place the canyon itself appears to meander and it's where the river obviously cut the meander when it was a much bigger river. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It needed much more water flowing through it to cut such a deep meander, but there's no reason to assume a huge erosive force such as would have occurred when the canyon was first being cut. Obviously the meander was cut at a later stage, but not after the river was down to its current size.The stuff you make up is always designed to contradict anything I say but it is completely unnecessary. There are always many ways of interpreting a situation besides yours.

I know how meanders are formed. A LARGE river can make meanders in the right terrain same as a small river could Go look at the main meander you all have to be talking about. It's cut wider at the top and then narrower toward the bottom, showing that the river was very big when the meander was first being cut.

It would help, jar, if you read what I actually wrote before responding. I did not say the Flood itself cut the canyon, as during its rising phase. I said it was the receding water rushing into cracks that cut the canyon, widening the cracks as it went, broken strata being used as an abrasive force.Your ridiculous comments about what "floods" would do are utterly irrelevant. The receding water would have scoured out the basic dimensions of the canyon and then as the flow of water lessened some, as it flowed across that enormous flat terrain you can see in the picture I posted above, it cut the meanders you see.

I could draw you a series of pictures if I had the means, which I don't.

Normal meanders: It won't post. It's just the Google Image page on "meanders" if you want to look it up.They form on flat terrain. So did the one in the Grand Canyon pictured above. But that one cut very deep. What's the difference? Volume of water perhaps?A meander that has cut into the terrain: Not very deep is it?Since there is no way anyone will ever agree with me here I am reduced to simply asserting that my interpretation is the correct one and yours are all ridiculously inadequate.The Grand Canyon meander was also cut in flat terrain which is clearly seen in the picture posted above. The idea that the levels were caused by erosion is nonsensical; they are clearly rings showing former levels of the river, which was obviously very deep when it started. Take it or leave it.I'm done with this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

One last OBVIOUS point and then you can all go back to your silly meaningless gibbering.SINCE MEANDERS FORM ON FLAT TERRAIN, and so did the Grand Canyon meander, it WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RUSHING WATER at that point, would it? Hey? REASONABLE INTERPRETATION: the canyon had been cut by the rushing water which was probably still high volume in the canyon proper, but the meander is not the canyon proper. At this location the Flood waters had scoured off what is probably the Kaibab Plateau, or one of the other flat plateaus that surround the canyon. Not the canyon proper but this meander developed AFTER The canyon was cut, on this flat plateau, feeding into the canyon, and it was a large volume of water for starters, and it developed a meander BECAUSE IT WAS RUNNING ACROSS A FLAT SURFACE. NOW I'm done.

The context is getting lost here, as so often happens. Exactly how the meander was cut is less important than the fact that it wasn't cut by the rushing water of the receding Flood as PaulK assumed I meant. That first great volume of water would have cut down through strata and carved out the canyon. It should have been a huge amount of water that also cut the Grand Staircase and scoured off the Kaibab plateau as it got down to the level of the current rim of the canyon, also the other flat areas around the csnyon. It was on such a flat plateau that the meander formed, from water left over from the receding Flood but settled down to a river running across a plateau. This is AFTER the cataracts that would have cut the canyon proper.Those still look like water level lines on the walls of the meander to me, similar to lines on the walls of a reservoir in a drought. But who cares, it's not the important thing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Glenn seems to have accepted way too much OE theory.

I realized I have more to say about your charming post.You ASSUME Glenn was reading the evidence accurately; you ASSUME his judgment was the most reasonable judgment possible. On the basis of your ASSUMPTION you criticize me for NOT agreeing with your assumptions. All you are saying is that he's right, and somehow you know he's right and that makes me wrong, and since I am a YEC I have no rignt to have an opinion about his judgments.When he talks of the Grand Canyon as taking a long time to form he's simply fallen for the OE explanation. What EVIDENCE told him it took a long time to form? There is no reason at all to think it took such a long time and every reason to recognize that the Flood is enough to account for a rapid carving of the canyon.I judge your opinions as incompetent.

Relative dating isn't standard geological practice for finding oil. And knowing the lay of the buried rocks ought to be a no-brainer whatever your theory.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am not "struggling" to find out anything about rock layers. I suppose you draw that wrong conclusion from the other thread? But that thread has the purpose of showing that the standard Geo understanding is wrong. What is the matter with you NN? You hardly ever get anything right, in fact you get it ridiculously wrong over and over.All I'm arguing against Morton is what I argue all the time as a YEC against the views he arrived at. What's the big deal? I'd still like to go through his website and discuss his many changes of mind.When he describes how YECs reacted to his changed views I feel sorry for him. I don't accuse him of being insincere, I'm sure he honestly arrived at his conclusions and his former colleagues were out of line to accuse him as he says they did. That doesn't require me to accept his conclusions, and they make an opportunity for a YEC to debate them as usual.

Well, that's certainly a new wrinkle on the Glenn Morton story. To me anyway. Now what?

All you would need to do is have a little flexibility and fairness. When I say the canyon was carved by the receding Flood water I have in mind the huge dimensions of it, I'm not necessarily thinking of every square inch of it, and you COULD be fair and suggest that since there are areas that don't appear to be describable in the terms I've given that perhaps I'm not including them. But no, you have to act like I must mean every square inch and that gives you the right to treat me like I'm cra*zy because there's an area that can't be described in such terms. "I'm sure you didn't really mean to include such and such" is perfectly fair and decent debate form, but it's very rare to find anyone here with that attitude. You could even ASK if I mean to include this or that section of the canyon.So you force me to address the meanders. There may be meanders all along the river but the canyon itself is eighteen miles wide at one point, and that couldn't have been created by a river, whereas a great rush of water at the end of the Flood could explain it. The river formed after it had all washed away. The meander in the area of the photo I put up had to have occurred after the receding water washed the plateaus around the canyon flat. Such a rush of water is the best explanation for the breaking up of the strata above the Kaibab rim, for the scouring of the plateaus, for the formation of the Grand Staircase, and for the formation of the canyon itself though most likely not every square inch of it.

I ignored most of your post and answered the part that I wanted to answer. Lying is not the word for that. I ignore lots of posts these days. Most of what you are saying is incomprehensible and irritating, in that earlier thread and in this one.I don't know what a specifically YEC approach to finding oil would be, but I don't see why it isn't possible since OE absolute dating is not necessary to it.What are you complaining about anyway?