|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Nothing you've said accounts for anything I see in that picture, particularly the breadth between the walls at the top of the meander.
Do not mistake me for someone who cares what you think.
There is no way your little river caused that. Or the canyon. If it was a big enough river to do that then it fits MY scenario, not yours.
If you do not see some of the basic mechanisms for erosion and mass wasting at work in the canyon, it makes no difference to me.
And if you're going to use jargon like "breakout type flooding" you have to explain what on earth it has to do with anything I said. Nothing that I can see.
Well, that was predictable. Sorry, Goldilocks. But what you see is what you get. If you don't understand, you could at least be civil and ask politely. Or maybe look words up.
And what does turbulence or lack of it have to do with anything I said? Nothing that I can see.
I'm not surprised that such an expert would be confused about this. The presence of turbulence tells us what types of sediment to expect in contrasting meandering streams to mountain canyons.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The meander was established early in the history of the river. Downcutting occurred later.
No, I assume it would split into rivers streams first. Yes, indeed; and the flows would be decreasing dramatically. The ability of this flood to erode has dissipated. It would look like a braided stream that has simply run dry. Now you've got a big enough river to form the upper width of the meander, WHICH IS WHAT I SAID HAD TO HAPPEN. And how the flows would be decreasing dramatically is ALSO WHAT I SAID HAD TO HAPPEN. And that fits with the FLOOD SCENARIO. Always at some point you do have to bring in some evidence of the Flood and yet you always have to deny it. Like your six impossible transgressions from the Sauk on up. Obviously evidence of the Flood prompted that idea, but you refuse to see the Flood where you should see it, you have to accommodate it all to the inadequate Old Earth theory. So was the canyon ever that full of water too? Because there's no way a little river cut it. It would have to have been big and broad like the one in your picture. Obviously you're just going to keep on bringing up irrelevant factors to disqualify everything I say, refuse to see any possible exceptions to your assumptions and current observations that are so utterly inadequate to the reality of the Flood, and I'm not up to it right now Edited by Faith, : remove unnecessary comment
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
That canyon could not have been cut by that little river Hasn't human activity resulted in less water flowing trough the canyon in modern times? Either way let's call it 20,000 cubic feet per second (we know it sometimes would get to 100K cubic feet per second, but even today gets as high as 25K cfs). There are about 30,000,000 seconds in a year so any given section of the canyon sees about 600,000,000,000 cubic feet of water per year. For 5 million years that would be 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of water. In weight terms a cubic foot is about 30kg so about 90,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg or90,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes All the water on the earth weighs approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes That's certainly more water than your flood scenario proposes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What ARE you talking about?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: So it wouldn’t cut a meander. That’s what I thought.
quote: Rivers, yes. Flood run-off no. It’s a slow process that requires the presence of banks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's certainly more water than your flood scenario proposes. Yes and if all that water rushed over the sides of the canyon all at once then it would create a very big canyon. But it's running in a narrow track and not pouring into the canyon from all sides all at once. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Typical deceit Paul. You just took a small quote out of context.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Typical false accusations. There’s nothing in the context that changes the meaning, nothing that makes the forming of a meander at all likely.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Now you've got a big enough river to form the upper width of the meander, WHICH IS WHAT I SAID HAD TO HAPPEN.
There is no 'upper width of the meander'. The canyon widens due to erosion of the canyon walls and transport of detritus down the river. The original meander is widened by erosion to a (semi-) stable angle.
And how the flows would be decreasing dramatically is ALSO WHAT I SAID HAD TO HAPPEN.
Then you agree, there isn't enough water nor time to create meanders. In braided streams when flows decrease you don't start getting meanders. For instance, where are the meanders sequential to the Lake Missoula flooding? There aren't any.
And that fits with the FLOOD SCENARIO.
Only in your mind.
Always at some point you do have to bring in some evidence of the Flood and yet you always have to deny it.
Where did that happen?
Like your six impossible transgressions from the Sauk on up. Obviously evidence of the Flood prompted that idea, but you refuse to see the Flood where you should see it, you have to accommodate it all to the inadequate Old Earth theory. So was the canyon ever that full of water too? Because there's no way a little river cut it. It would have to have been big and broad like the one in your picture.
No, the canyon walls are eroded back just as they erode today. Mostly by undercutting and toppling along with temporary dam bursts and mudflows.
Obviously you're just going to keep on bringing up irrelevant factors to disqualify everything I say, refuse to see any possible exceptions to your assumptions and current observations that are so utterly inadequate to the reality of the Flood, and I'm not up to it right now
I cannot lie on this. Your scenario makes no sense at all. There is no 'reality of the Flood'. Only stories.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
No, I assume it would split into rivers or streams first. Where are those other rivers and streams? Why didn't they carve grand canyons of their own?
If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS? (a thread you failed to comment on):
quote: Those questions are directed at you to explain. Your model of sheet flow becoming streams would mean that both the northern route and the southern route would be affected and have ended up with streams of their own. There is NO evidence of such stream formation in either of these regions, instead streams developed perpendicular to these indicated flow paths and actually cut through higher and higher ground to reach the Grand Canyon. How? If you can't explain it then your model fails, badly and irrecoverably, such a total failure that you should be embarrassed to repeat it. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : subtby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
No, I assume it would split into rivers or streams first. Where are those other rivers and streams? We're talking about water running across a huge plateau RAZD. A gigantic surface of the limestone layer now known as the Kaibab Plateau. It's been scoured off by the washing away of a couple of miles oif sedimentary layers that had been above it. Now it's a flat surface and the last of the draining Flood water is running across it. As its volume continues to decrease it breaks into rivers and streams instead of a sheet. Some of them probably join together to form the stream that forms the meander. The rest may exit into the main part of the canyon that is forming to the west, but it all eventually runs OFF the plateau following all the rest of the draining Flood water except the water that remains and becomes the Colorado River. I'm really sorry, I like diagrams but I really can't figure out what yours is trying to say. I wish I could. The way I picture this we are at the height of the Flood, we have thousands of square miles of sediments stacked one on top of another to a depth of three mjiles or so all underwater. All that can be seen in all directions is water. Then we get the tectonic upheaval that split the continents. It is a lateral movement three miles below the surface of the water. It is occurring all over the world. It creates the Great Unconformity all over the world. In the Grand Canyon area it tilts the Supergroup and pushed up the Kaibab Uplift from the Tapeats layer up through the three miles of layers. This is all connected to the beginning of the draining of the Flood waters. The Kaibab Uplift puts a strain on the uppermost sedimentary layers in the area that becomes the Grand Canyon. Cracks form in those layers. They start to break up. The water is starting to move, the cracks widen, chunks of the broken up strata are washing into the cracks as well as across what eventually becomes the Kaibab Plateau. At this point it woujld be hard to pinpoint the elevations you seem to be concerned about. The Kaibab limestone layer is about two miles beneath the uppermost strata that are starting to break up. At the same time the area to the north is breaking up too. The land is lifted way to the north so the water would be running north to south but also I think east to west, and forming what become the cliffs of the Grand Staircase. But back at the Grand Canyon area, the cracks have been widening, the layers are washing away, eventually we're down to the Kaibab level and we have a huge wide crack that the water is funning into which becomes the Grand Canyon. The water is also continuing to run over what becomes the Kaibab Plateau. If you can figure out where the higher and lower elevations are that woujd probably show the pattern followed by the water when it gets low enough for it to matter. The canyon is being widened where it eventually becomes widest. The water is coming mostly from north and east. To the east the receding water has wased off the surface of the kaibab limestone layer so that it is now a gigantic plateau. There is still a lot of water draining although most of it is gone by now. When it gets down to the level of the plateau it becomes a sheet. You could maybe tell me which direction it is flowing now but the elevation of the land is changing a lot because of the tectonic disturbance going on. The Rockies may already be starting to push up, creating higher ground in that direction; the Grand Staircase area is pushed up to the north so water would be flowing south from there, as well as west. We've got the huge expanse that's becoming the Kaibab Plateau now. If you look at the picture of the meander the water is carving those cliff like areas in the background, then it is moving into a very wide curve that forms the uppermost walls of the meander which I could indicate from one side of the picture to the other if I still had the Paint program I was used to. It's extremely broad. The water keeps decreasing in volume and continuing to follow the curve until it forms the meander we see. At this point the water is convined to this particular track in this area. The other streams just keep flowing until they run into the canyon at some other point. The land is still in upheaval because of the tectonic activity. Magma penetrates up through the layers at various points. It exits at the top of the Grand Staircase at its far north end. It spills over in the Grand Canyon at a much lower level because all the strata above have washed away. Etc etc etc. Whatever your diagram is trying to say I don't think it would change my scenario much because you are mapping the final result of a lot of processes going through a lot of stages before it got there.
Whyhey carve grand canyons of their own? See above. They probably mostly got channeled into the Grand Canyon,
If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS? (a thread you failed to comment on). It's where the tectonic upheaval pushed up the Kaibab Uplift which created the strain in the uppermost layers which caused the cracks in the strata which eventually became the canyon as the uppermost strata broke up and the water channeled into those widening cracks. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
May I now ask how it can be that a source that calls itself scientific can give an unacceptable definition of evolution? Because it set out to explain Darwin's original theory, not the theory of evolution or the process of evolution. If you want a good source try:
quote: I predict you won't get far because of cognitive dissonance causing you to reject what is said. You will find that it is well supported with evidence and description of how the conclusions are reached. A good intermediate between your (silly) example and a university textbook description, gauged for elementary, middle and high school classes. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thanks for the recommendation. I've actually read a lot of that Berkeley site over the years. In fact it was the main part of what got me started on the biological argument against evolution. But I appreciate knowing your assessment of the source.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: Yes I'm sure magazines print what they think represents science at the appropriate level. Yes, of course.
Unfortunately in the case of the Geological Time Scale that turns out to be pure mystification and unfair to the public. This complaint about magazines is spurious. The information is out there for anyone who wants it, more so today than ever in the history of man. The geologic column is backed by mountains of evidence gathered over centuries with no evidence calling it into question, and much of that evidence has been presented to you here at EvC. Any magazine that accurately represents currently accepted science unadulterated by religious mysticism is doing the public a service.
Got a popular Geology magazine that isn't too expensive I could consider getting? Why, with the Internet at your fingertips, with websites like Wikipedia and search engines like Google Scholar a keystroke away, are you seeking out magazines for the general public? I see Modulous pointed you at a blog, and you might also try Earth Magazine, articles available online.
And why do you enjoy your straw man stuff so much> No I do NOT accept "evolution" by which any reasonable person would know I meant the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Of course I accept MICROevolution. That this is an inconsistent and contradictory position has been noted many times before. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Your completely unsupported declaration lacking all detail that kinds (whatever a kind is) experienced rapid evolution to form all the species we see today is not microevolution. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: This isn't about ordinary reasonable magazine publication standards, this is about preventing the reader from understanding something that would be easy enough to rectify. I think magazines will pretty much continue catering to their audiences rather than addressing Faith's pet peeves.
I don't think they are intentionally doing this, I just think they assume the information is as good as fact, as historical geology does anyway, and that nobody should complain. I think that if you have evidence that reveals weaknesses or errors in the views of geology that you should present them. But to this point in time you haven't even demonstrated an understanding of even the most simple of geological processes, certainly not enough to identify problems. You have a kind of fairy tale view of geology where water and sediments and corpses and strata do whatever you need them to do to fit into your Biblically inspired fantasies, instead of what the physical laws of the universe dictate is possible. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024