Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

One thing I think important is to remind Faith that meanders are formed by more than just erosion. They are formed when both erosion and deposition are happening at the same time, by a body of water that has both faster and slower moving currents. The faster current erodes the outside of a curve while the slower currents deposit material on the inside of the curve. Gradually over time this stretches the neck of the meander.However, floods create an entirely different pattern and in fact remove meanders as well as form oxbow lakes. During floods the water rises high enough to cut a channel through the neck of the meander which consists of the recently deposited material straightening the river and leaving the meander itself isolated as a lake or fossil channel.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

Actually Faith, no, that is NOT what it shows at all. The "V" shape to the Grand Canyon is an indicator of a valley cut by long term down cutting of the rock. The width at the top is not an indication of the width of the river but rather simply the effects of weathering and erosion over long, long, long periods of time. It is yet another

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.

I have read what you write Faith but unfortunately what you write is simply refuted by reality.You have proposed that the material the Colorado River cuts through was deposited by the claimed flood.Okay, but again you have not explained two really, really, really necessary things.First your fantasy flood would have to get all that sediment, weather and erode it from some place else, carry it to that location, sort all the sediment by original formation process, deposit the sediment by original formation process, then raise the whole column over a mile.Second, once all that was done you need to cut the canyon and explain how the meanders were formed.But even after you do all that, you still face the impossible task of showing that there ever was such a flood and that the Earth is young. Remember, all the material that is now the walls of the Grand Canyon had to have first been formed somewhere else and by plain old conventional geological processes and not the magical fantasy call the Biblical flood.Sorry Faith but there is absolutely no reason other than willful ignorance for anyone to accept the absurdity of a Young Earth.Edited by jar, : to ---> tWo

Just looking at that photo, you can tell that whatever happened, happened slowly. A quick and violent event would not create that shape it would just bludgen its way through.I was in the Norweigan fjords last week and saw the effect of the huge weight of ice ripping the mountains in two - no hint of a meanders. THAT'S what a you'd expect if it was possible at all.Personally I don't accept that water alone, in less than a year, could possibly erode that much rock. But if it could, it would not create a meander. We know how fast rivers eroded rock, we need some other real-world evidence to contradict that. As far as I'm aware we have none.Note steep sides. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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.

quote:

---

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?

---

That is rather a problem for your view, then.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then where is this "canyon proper" ? Why do you never answer that question ?

We're probably talking about different things with the phrase "finding it".I'm talking about a geologist going something like: "there's all this organic matter way down there that over the course of millions and millions of years has turned into oil and we can drill down there and get it". And then a YEC comes in a goes: "well, really, its that there's all this organic matter way down there that over the course of thousands and thousands of years has turned into oil and we can drill down there and get it".That they've just lopped a bunch of zeros off of the years wouldn't prevent them from finding the oil. I was going along with this:

quote:

---

YECs can find oil with just the basic idea of relative dating and knowledge of the morphology of the rocks

---

I think petrophysics is talking about something different that is more along the lines of if the YECs didn't have the geologists to piggy back off of then they'd have no reason to think the oil was down there and wouldn't go about finding it. That I agree with. I certainly don't concede that because there is no such thing as "YEC methods".All YECs do is steal other peoples' work and lop zeros off the years.Unless I'm wrong? Can you tell me about these YEC methods?Edited by Cat Sci, : typos

In addition to the fact that all of the geological evidence shows the Earth is really, really old every other avenue of exploration confirms Old Earth.According to the Young Earth nonsense humans were created along with the moon during the first week or so. But if we look at the moon we can see an enormous number of craters and yet there are no reports of explosions on the moon from humans.The moon has one side that always faces the earth. It would take longer than 10,000 years to create that arrangement.I can see stars at night, and even objects that are further away than would be possible if the Earth were young.The Green River Varves exist. There we see over 4,000,000 alternating light colored and dark colored, fine grained and coarse grained sediment layers. As I pointed out in Message 44 of Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood:

quote:

---

They can only settle on the bottom. That is what is so clear about this example. We have over 4,000,000 instances of a finer material being laid down followed by a slightly coarser layer then another finer layer, another coarser layer.

​

To get that fine a silt to settle out the water must be near still, followed by the more active flow to provide the slightly coarser layer, followed another quiescent period.

​

This is not sand but silt and we can deal with how to make silt after someone explains How to make sand., but for now, you need to present the model that explains over 4 million layers of finer silt then coarser silt, lighter silt then darker silt.

​

So lets look at your 4 million catastrophic events. If it happened over the 6000 year period you have mentioned that is over 666 events a year, about two a day, every day right up through yesterday. Likely someone might have noticed.

​

In that case it also eliminates a flood during those 6000 years.

​

If it happened during the flood year it is about 11,000 repeating cycles a day or something over 450 such events every hour, more than seven every minute.

​

Now remember this is such fine silt that it will stay suspended unless the water is standing still for a considerable period of time.

​

So once again, what is your model for the 4 million plus alternating layers of finer and coarser, lighter and darker material?

---

Uranium Halos exist.The Okla Reactor exists.All of the biological evidence points to Old Earth and change over time.Every new technology that can measure elapsed time confirms Old Earth.Sand exists.Salt beds exist and can be found buried under thousands of feet of rock.So there are ten more good reasons to throw Young Earth away.

Make an argument. Nobody is going to consider a mere assertion by you about a science topic. Particularly in the face of the fact that Paul and others are providing actual arguments.