Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 151 of 877 (834108)
05-30-2018 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by edge
05-30-2018 12:47 AM


EDGE'S OBJECTIONS
So let me see if I can remember
My meander scenario is wrong because
  • There isn't gravel where he would expect it to be
  • There isn't evidence of back flooding
  • There isn't evidence of sheet flow of water on the Kaibab plateau
  • There isn't evidence of turbulence where he'd expect it
  • There isn't an upper rim where the water level started out much higher, he says that was formed entirely by erosion after the water had reduced in volume. Same in the main part of the canyon: all the slopes were formed by erosion.
Might as well include the objection that my interpretation of the formation of the Great Unconformity is wrong too, because
  • There is no evidence of shearing wherever he would expect to see that
  • There are pebbles in the contact, which I think are of schist? which he attirbtes to the former beach environment of the Tapeats sandstone.
That's all I can remember at the moment.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by edge, posted 05-30-2018 12:47 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 152 of 877 (834109)
05-30-2018 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by ringo
05-30-2018 4:41 PM


Re: A Digression to define the Theory of Evolution
If it's about dogmatic statements that you have run into, shouldn't it be you who gives the examples?
Of course, that's what I expected to be doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by ringo, posted 05-30-2018 4:41 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 877 (834110)
05-30-2018 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
05-29-2018 9:15 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Percy has many times objected to my claim that the strata after the Flood were hard enough to be cut into a canyon rather than collapsing,
Which is not the same thing at all. Percy would never have said that sedimentary rock cannot form from sediments. That would require some kind of idiot.
so if I said something that sounds different than that it must have been in some other context and I have no idea what it was.
If you "said something that sounds different?" Sure. Let me remind you and everyone else exactly what you said. I don't believe any additional context is necessary, but I will provide a link to the message just in case you want to explain the inexplicable. From: Message 2760
Faith writes:
"Earth" can't become a sedimentary rock; "soil" can't become a sedimentary rock. Earth is made up of lots of things besides the simple separated ssediment that form the rocks in the geo/strata columns. Earth can't become one of those rocks. You can't turn earth into sedimentary rock so how are you going to get the next rock in your supposed stack of rocks? You aren't. Sigh.
From: Message 2824
Faith writes:
"Fossilized bits" is not what I was talking about, but about a whole lot of "earth" and "soil" supposedly incorporated into the sediment as part of the rock itself.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 9:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 154 of 877 (834111)
05-30-2018 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
05-29-2018 10:44 AM


Re: Your second list
Faith writes:
As usual you have a bunch of straw man misrepresentations of my arguments...
Once again you've made an empty unsupported accusation. This is a discussion. If I got anything wrong then it's incumbent upon you to point out what that was, and then we can discuss it.
...plus the usual idea that if I don't accept the establishment point of view I don't "understand" anything,...
This claim is easily disproven. I have explicitly distinguished between not accepting a view and not understanding it. This is from my Message 49:
Percy in Message 49 writes:
Understand that this isn't a criticism of your rejection of scientific understandings - it's merely noting your failure, refusal or inability to understand them.
Why do you so frequently lash out with accusations that are not only untrue, but easily shown untrue? Why not take a few minutes, do a little research, do a little checking, read some old posts to confirm your recollections, then say something true? I think I speak for all of us when I say that your endless made-up accusations, complaints and nonsense have grown more than tiresome.
...since all you are doing is regurgitating the status quo as usual. That's kind of the theme song here in general.
The term "regurgitating" is poorly chosen. Most people here make a concerted effort to advocate views that are supported by evidence and analysis. This is a science site, and explaining and arguing for scientifically supported views is what most people try to do here. Even you try to make your views conform to natural physical laws, though your lack of understanding of them greatly hinders this effort.
The idea that I lack scientific knowledge simply means my refusal to accept evolution and the Old Earth.
We're all long past hoping that evidence and reasoning will cause you to accept scientific views, and the conclusion that you lack scientific knowledge has nothing to do with that. Rather, this lack is evident in almost every sentence you write.
But it's actually worse than that, becuase you don't even have an intuitive sense of how the natural world works.
And you're the one who doesn't understand physics,...
No, I'm pretty sure it's you who doesn't understand physics. You think cubic miles of rock can disappear into thin air, that buried strata can tilt without affecting overlying layers, that rocks form by drying, that there are underground rivers eroding channels between strata, that sedimentation atop stratigraphic columns doesn't occur, that evidence has an expiration date, that evidence should be subordinated to the Bible, etc.
You see, I can be very specific about what you don't understand. You, on the other hand, can only cast meaningless accusations with no basis in fact.
...but of course fat chance anyone will ever acknowledge that in Percy Land.
If you've got something about physics that I've got wrong then all you need do is: a) Quote what I said; b) Go to Wikipedia, find the information that shows I'm wrong, then post it; and c) Bask in the accolades from everyone here, including me, who will cheer your accomplishment in finally getting something right.
So you insist that Walther's Law is about slow movement across "depositional environments."
Uh, no. What you wrote doesn't even make sense because it doesn't even say what is moving, and in any case there is nothing in Walther's Law that has anything moving across depositional environments. Looking back at my Message 88 I can't imagine how you ended up with what you wrote. Why don't you, as I have suggested many, many times, quote what you're replying to so you have it in front of you and can respond to what was actually said, instead of relying upon your frequently faulty memory.
Walther's Law is about the slow movement of depositional environments. It explains how the horizontal movement of adjacent depositional environments results in a vertical sequence of sedimentary layers.
Well, I deny depositional environments,...
Just because, or do you have some evidence driving this denial?
71% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and the vast majority of it is experiencing deposition. You yourself have acknowledged the existence of depositional environments, for example, in the discussions of lake varves whose record extends right up to the present. There couldn't be a sedimentary layer on the bottom of the lake from last year if the lake weren't a depositional environment.
From Wikipedia, which says, in essence, the same as what I just told you:
quote:
Walther's Law of Facies, or simply Walther's Law, named after the geologist Johannes Walther (1860-1937), states that the vertical succession of facies reflects lateral changes in environment. Conversely, it states that when a depositional environment "migrates" laterally, sediments of one depositional environment come to lie on top of another.
...and the rule covers the scenario of a faster rising sea just fine,...
No, it does not. A rapid incursion of water onto land is not a depositional environment, there are no adjacent depositional environments, and certainly no vertical succession of sedimentary deposits of different depositional environments results.
...as moose agreed a while back.
Moose would not agree with your denial of depositional environments.
Moose was trying to help you by saying that Walther's Law does not have a time element, that it could happen fast or slow (see Message 2306), but as a practical matter depositional environments do not move rapidly. I pointed out some problems in what he said in Message 2381, and Edge added further rebuttal in Message 2382 This is Moose's specific comment supporting your view:
Moose in Message 2306 of the Evolution: We have the fossils. We win. thread writes:
In the young Earth model (aka Faith flood model), new clastic sediment is quickly being added as the sea rises over a short time period (a year or less?). Over this short time period, a lot of sediment can accumulate.
But there are a number of fatal problems. First, this isn't the Faith flood model. You don't claim that new clastic sediments were being added as the sea rose - in order to avoid the lithification of deeply buried sediments on land you decided that most of the sediments came from the sea floor, so they were already in the sea.
But more importantly, a rapid incursion of water onto land is not a depositional environment - "rapid" and "depositional" are not compatible. There are no adjacent depositional environments that are migrating, just the rapid incursion of water onto land. Feeding clastic sediments into the sea isn't really a depositional environment. The fine sediments that built Earth's strata could not fall out of suspension in active water. The order of strata is all wrong for a flood.
Perhaps he's changed his mind by now,...
I hope Moose responds and let's us know his views.
...but it's true no matter who agrees with it.
It's only true if you and whoever agrees with you can build a convincing case using evidence and reasoning.
I also deny the ridiculous idea that there were a number of sea transgressions and regressions.
Just because, or do you have some evidence driving this denial?
You think it impossible to account for one worldwide Flood and yet you have, what, six?
I'm not aware that geology believes there was ever even a single worldwide flood during Earth's entire history, let alone six. You do seem to have difficulty finding anything to say that is true.
Why don't you just put a banner up at the top of EvC saying
CREATIONISTS NOT WELCOME HERE.
That would be a lot more honest than "Understanding through discussion." Don't you think it's time to come out from behind that curtain?
I think the current motto is just fine. If you engaged in a bit more discussion and a bit less denial you might find a bit more understanding.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 10:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 155 of 877 (834112)
05-30-2018 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Modulous
05-30-2018 3:39 PM


Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Nice video (Message 147), I'm enjoying it. I'm only a little over ten minutes into it but there are already a few things I'd like to comment on before the main point you want to make comes up.
I was interested in the use of the calcium content of the garnets found in the Vishnu Schist to determine the height of the rock above it that had provided the pressure to form the scshist and the garnets, which they determined to have been six miles. Of course they were thinking of the supposed former mountains they imagine to have existed there before the canyon. The weight of the Paleozoic strata into which the canyon was cut has always been my explanation for the schist and the granite formed beneath the Great Unconformity, but that only comes to three miles, possibly four, not six. You know of course that I'm not giving that up in any case but it was interesting how they use the garnets.
ABE: Since I think the schist formed as a result of the weight of the strata plus the heat from pressure plus volcanic activity and magma beneath the Great Unconformity, and the whole area would have been under water at the time, I suppose we could add some weight of the water to the rock as well and perhaps that would make up the difference to explain the amount of calcium in the garnets. Of course the strata would have been highly compacted but perhaps the water still contributed some weight, or even the water standing above the whole stack for that matter. A gallon of water weighs something over eight pounds. /'ABE
And of course this nice geologist sketches out the time periods that divide rocks into former landscapes. Which is very clear in his presentastion: those rocks he really does describe as former landscapes right there on the spot, determined by the fossils in them, though others here seem to enjoy pretending Geology doesn't think any such thing.
This is a time of vigorous eyeball-rolling for me of course as I contemplate again this notion that a slab of rock could represent an identifiable time covering millions of years. We mustn't insult the naked emperor scientists though, and after all they really do seem like a bunch of nice sincere people.
And this nice geologist goes on to describe the supposed transgressions of the sea over the land that they say account for the sedimentary rocks, some eight of them, and the animation shows a layer of sand followed by a layer of mud followed by a layer of the calcified stuff that becomes limestone, all deposited apparently by precipitation out of the sea. Here I just want to point out that there's no mention of limestone having to grow in place, it is merely the result of deposited broken up shells. Just as I've said.
So just a few thoughts before your main topic comes up.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Modulous, posted 05-30-2018 3:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Modulous, posted 05-30-2018 6:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 296 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-03-2018 6:13 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 156 of 877 (834113)
05-30-2018 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Modulous
05-30-2018 3:39 PM


Video continued LIFTED WITHOUT TILTING
Video in Message 147:
At 11:50 or so he's saying that the Laramide Orogeny -- ie one aspect of that tectonic event I think was a major single event that split the continents and did a lot of other things I describe in my scenario +-- lifted up the land WITHOUT TILTING IT. So all you people who keep objecting to my saying that's what happened with the tectonic pressure that formed the Kaibab Uplift can stop saying it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Modulous, posted 05-30-2018 3:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Modulous, posted 05-30-2018 6:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 157 of 877 (834114)
05-30-2018 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
05-30-2018 5:58 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Nice video, I'm enjoying it. I'm only a little over ten minutes into it but there are already a few things I'd like to comment on before the main point you want to make comes up.
Excellent - I enjoyed it. I'm not geology type person, and I found it quite well presented with some tantalizing information without getting too boring.
I was interested in the use of the calcium content of the garnets found in the Vishnu Schist to determine the height of the rock above it that had provided the pressure to form the scshist and the garnets, which they determined to have been six miles. Of course they were thinking of the supposed former mountains they imagine to have existed there before the canyon. The weight of the Paleozoic strata into which the canyon was cut has always been my explanation for the schist and the granite formed beneath the Great Unconformity, but that only comes to three miles, possibly four, not six. You know of course that I'm not giving that up in any case but it was interesting how they use the garnets.
ABE: Since I think the schist formed as a result of the weight of the strata plus the heat from pressure plus volcanic activity and magma beneath the Great Unconformity, and the whole area would have been under water at the time, I suppose we could add some weight of the water to the rock as well and perhaps that would make up the difference to explain the amount of calcium in the garnets. Of course the strata would have been highly compacted but perhaps the water still contributed some weight, or even the water standing above the whole stack for that matter. A gallon of water weighs something over eight pounds. /'ABE
The mountains they 'imagine' don't make any difference to the formation of the Grand Canyon per se, they get eroded away before any of the main stuff happens - so it's not like they have to have them there to preserve the notion of an old Grand Canyon. My understanding is that the garnets simply indicate how much stuff was above - and the amount of stuff suggests mountains.
I imagine the flood waters would have quite an amount of weight to them, but rock is denser than water so I expect you'd need a heck of a lot of water to make up the difference - more than 5 or 6 miles deep that's for sure! I'm not here to refute your position - but it's certainly something to keep in mind when figuring out how they formed.
And this nice geologist goes on to describe the supposed transgressions of the sea over the land that they say account for the sedimentary rocks, some eight of them, and the animation shows a layer of sand followed by a layer of mud followed by a layer of the calcified stuff that becomes limestone, all deposited apparently by precipitation out of the sea. Here I just want to point out that there's no mention of limestone having to grow in place, it is merely the result of deposited broken up shells. Just as I've said.
I'm not sure what you mean by limestone growing in place - but I think we can agree that as a reasonable approximation 'deposited broken up shells' will suffice to explain the origins of limestone.
So just a few thoughts before your main topic comes up.
I look forward to it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 5:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 7:06 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 8:58 PM Modulous has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 158 of 877 (834115)
05-30-2018 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
05-29-2018 4:27 PM


Re: Your lists
Faith writes:
This is related to the question about why you think world geology generally is the same as the Grand Staircase region. Evidence of any fault that didn't extend to the surface anywhere in the world would be evidence that there was tectonic activity while the Flood was depositing sediments, contradicting your claim. The New Madrid Fault System begins in Missouri and extends southwest. It is buried beneath sedimentary layers:
Those sedimentary rocks are Paleozoic strata same as those above the Supergroup, which are divided from the lower rocks by the Great Unconformity. My guess is that it's to be explained the same way: horizontal movement at the contact at the same time as the faulting occurred.
Here's the image again:
Two things. First, the Supergroup/Tapeats contact is exposed at the Grand Canyon and there is no evidence of horizontal movement. Grinding Supergroup layers into tiny pebbles doesn't help your problem with the disappearing cubic miles of rock anyway, since turning rock into pebbles does not affect volume.
Second, the reason you claimed horizontal movement is because of the Supergroup tilting. There is no Supergroup at the New Madrid fault, and therefore no Supergroup tilting.
Interestingly the Paleozoic layers also curve up and over the lower rift just as they do over the Supergroup forming the Kaibab Uplift, showing that they were already there when the faulting occurred, exactly as the same phenomenon in the GC does.
First, if the Paleozoic layers were already there when the faulting occurred then the faults would extend up into the Paleozoic layers. They don't, so the Paleozoic layers were not there when the faulting occurred. The Reelfoot Rift (the name of the fault system) occurred 750 MYA during the breakup of Rodinia. The Paleozoic layers weren't deposited until a couple hundred million years later. Second, what the diagram does indicate is that the Paleozoic layers were already there when the uplift occurred.
Oddly, other cross sections show the strata curving down in a hammock shape instead of up. I wonder which is correct.
You posted no images, but there are both convex and concave layers. The concave layers are nearest to the surface and formed as part of the region's river basin which eroded downward into the convex Paleozoic layers beneath, then filled in with sediments later. The river basin layers are less than five million years old.
However, either curve shows the strata were already there and likely still rather damp and malleable because all this was occurring just as the Flood was starting to recede.
This scenario is not supported by any evidence.
Anyway, there you have it, buried faults that must have occurred, in your scenario, during the Flood.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 4:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 159 of 877 (834116)
05-30-2018 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
05-30-2018 6:36 PM


Re: Video continued LIFTED WITHOUT TILTING
quote:
At 11:50 or so he's saying that the Laramide Orogeny...lifted up the land WITHOUT TILTING IT
That's at about 13:40 I think

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 6:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 160 of 877 (834117)
05-30-2018 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Modulous
05-30-2018 6:39 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
The mountains they 'imagine' don't make any difference to the formation of the Grand Canyon per se
They make a big difference to my theory of how the canyon formed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Modulous, posted 05-30-2018 6:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 161 of 877 (834118)
05-30-2018 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
05-29-2018 4:56 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Faith writes:
I don't think it had to have been cut vertically. The receding Flood volume would have been greater at first, cutting a wider area, then narrower as it cut deeper into the area and its level dropped.
Not possible. The sloping sides happen naturally through their erosion in a gradually deepening canyon, not through downcutting by rapidly flowing water.
I would direct you to those curved meanders at the east end of the canyon
First let's set the location context. This is Point Hansbrough, and it's outside the canyon proper. It's in a section of the Colorado River known as Marble Canyon that extends from Lee's Ferry in the north down to where the Little Colorado joins, which is where the Grand Canyon actually begins. Here's a map to help you place it - all the controls should work, and you can also open the location in a full window by clicking on "View larger map":
Note that the overall depth is much shallower here...
Marble Canyon is certainly not as deep as the Grand Canyon, but it's still pretty deep, I think around 2500 feet, nearly half a mile.
...and the upper part of the walls exposed because obviously the level of the water has dropped,...
Actually the land slowly rose (the uplift of the Colorado Plateau) and the river gradually eroded down.
...and you can see the gradation from the wider upper walls down through the progressively lower narrower walls, which would have been formed in the way I describe for the canyon: the first volume of water to begin to trace the meander was as wide as the uppermost walls, and as the water receded and its level dropped the width of the walls it cut narrowed.
As has been explained many, many times, rapidly flowing water cannot meander.
There's another aspect of the sloping canyon sides that is important to note, and that's that the sides of the canyon vary in slope. Some of the exposed canyon face is vertical, some sloped, and the governing factor is the hardness of the strata. The softer the strata the more likely it is to form slopes. Check out this diagram and you'll see that the harder strata (the limestones and sandstones) form cliffs, while the softer strata (the shales and mudstones) form slopes. This pattern is caused by erosion over long time periods:
Yeah but that part is obvious and well known.
I don't think it's either obvious or well known. What is the reasoning that seems obvious to you?
Erosion would form those shapes after the basic width of the canyon was cut.
The reason the canyon is wider at the top than at the bottom is that the higher above the canyon floor the longer the canyon face has been exposed to the forces of erosion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 4:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 9:17 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 162 of 877 (834119)
05-30-2018 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
05-29-2018 9:10 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Faith writes:
I've seen lots of animations along those lines. I guess you are objecting to something I said but I don't get your point. Nothing you said changes the apparent situation in the picture of a lot of water crossing a flat plateau and forming a stream that becomes a very wide meander that eventually becomes deeper and narrower. What is your objection to that?
Here is a flat sheet of water flowing across a flat plain. Please point out the meanders for us:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 9:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 8:59 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 163 of 877 (834120)
05-30-2018 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Modulous
05-30-2018 6:39 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
So I saw it to the end. I kept having the feeling I'd seen it before; maybe parts of it showed up somewhere else, or maybe I did see it before but it must have been quite a while ago before I had the opinions I have now as fully worked out.
Anyway. I don't buy the erosion theory to explain the great width of the canyon. Just a way to avoid the obvious explanation of the Flood it seems to me.
The part about the lake as the possible cause of the canyon was interesting simply because it is so similar to some creationists' theories about how the canyon formed, by the draining of a large lake left standing after the Flood, called Hopi Lake in that case. same basic situation as Lakes Missoula and Lahontan and I forget the others offhand, also very large lakes left standing after the Flood and eventually draining. I think it's a reasonable interpretation but I like my own better.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Modulous, posted 05-30-2018 6:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2018 2:24 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 164 of 877 (834121)
05-30-2018 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
05-30-2018 8:20 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Meanders don't form from sheets of water, they form from streama running across flat areas which I pretty clearly said more than once the sheet would have split into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 8:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 9:14 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 165 of 877 (834122)
05-30-2018 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
05-30-2018 4:39 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
Faith writes:
But I don't think your concern about elevation matters anyway as I went through my own scenario for you.
Elevation matters. Water doesn't flow uphill. Your scenario requires water to flow uphill. Therefore your scenario is wrong.
Here's the image RAZD posted in an earlier message showing elevations. It isn't too bright, and you don't need to read any of the wording. All you need to know is that the darker green (the regions outlined in black) indicates higher elevations:
The blue line is the Colorado River, and it flows directly through the elevated regions. That's not possible in your flood scenario - water would have flowed around the elevated regions.
The reason that today's Colorado River flows through the elevated regions is because the Colorado existed before these regions were uplifted. Gradual uplift was accompanied by gradual downcutting of the river into the uplifting landscape. The canyon is deepest in the region of greatest elevation, because that's where the Colorado had to downcut the most.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 4:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 9:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024