Summations Only

I intended to post a reply to this one when I first saw it, don't know what happened, posting a reply now.If you copy-n-paste in peek mode then you'll maintain the markup. I'll reinsert the markup in quoting your message: I was trying to help with you a list of magazines ordered from most to least detailed science, in my opinion. I can't tell you which ones contain articles in their archives or will print articles in the future that answer your questions. What I can tell you is that if you do a web search for something and end up at the Science Magazine site that you'll get a great deal of detail that you likely won't understand because it will assume a science background that you don't possess. If you end up at the National Geographic site you'll get great photos, a well written and very interesting article with some good facts that is easy to understand but that provides little background detail.But as NoNukes effectively argued in Message 140, neither popular magazines nor scientists are likely to rehash long established scientific findings. Nevertheless, a lot of this information is available on the web if you look for it, and a lot of it has been presented to you here, which you usually ignore.The magazine list was just one small part of my post - you ignored the rest. Here's a list of the parts I think most relevant:

• Do you still believe there is no sedimentation taking place atop stratigraphic columns anywhere in the world?
  ​
• Strata represent time periods - that they do not would be impossible and absurd. You should be asking whether the evidence suggests hours or eons (eons in the general sense, not the geological definition).
  ​
• Do you understand that a boulder breaking off the Shinumo hills and rolling onto the Tapeats beach is the same thing that happens at many places around the world today, like this image of Garrapata Beach in Carmel, California, where boulders are eroded from the hills lining the coast and fall to the beach below:
  ​

--Percy

Yes, I've been meaning to ask: what evidence is it that you expect to find for a sheet flow?

Yes I "still believe" the Geological Column is over and done with and that whatever sedimentary layers are forming anywhere now have nothing to do with it.Yes I believe it outlandishly absurd to think a layer of rock represents a time period.Boulders may fall on beaches all the time but that quartzite boulder buried in the Tapeats sandstone did not fall on any Tapeats beach. There was no Tapeats beach and the boulder was broken off by the tectonic motion at the end of the Flood that caused a massive sliding of rocks against each other.As for popular accounts of the historical sciences it's frustrated me from way back before I was a Chrsitian or a creationist that stories about evolution presented extraordinarily ancient times as flat out factual realities, especially when they imaginatively reconstructed the supposed living conditions of some extinct creature; and in those days I had no reason to disagree with any of it, it was just frustrating to be given such fiction in such a dogmatic way. NOW I suppose it's because I know it is all false that it particularly annoys me.Now, meaning for the last oh 25 years or so, on trips where I've seen those signs telling me this or that geological formation is so many millions of years old I laugh and roll my eyes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But the conventional theories provide both the models, mechanisms, methods, processes and procedures that explain the reality that exists while you seem unable or unwilling to ever propose the models, mechanisms, methods, processes and procedures that explain how one of the Biblical Flood stories could create ANY of the evidence found in reality.A few examples might help. How did your flood create these objects? So if you can find no way that your flood could create those ten examples how can you know the flood created anything or that there even was a flood?

This couldn't be further from irrelevant or a nitpick. Your proposed scenario is wrong for a number of reasons, some of which I touch on below, others I've described in other messages. The walls of the canyon are exposed because the river has eroded downward through the rocky landscape as the region uplifted. A "lazy slow movement of a wide stream of water" sounds like a lot of the Mississippi. Have you heard reported any rapid downward erosion of the Mississippi? No, you haven't.You have two choices, neither of them viable. Either the flow was rapid and narrowly focused enough to cut through rock, in which case meanders are impossible, or it was slow and lazy, in which case it was incapable of cutting through rock.The rapid flow scenario is also impossible because a year is nowhere near enough time for water to cut through a mile of rock. Plus, as RAZD has pointed out, your scenario requires water to flow uphill.Your proposal that the flow lessened over time and became gradually more narrow as an explanation for the sloping canyon sides makes the problem more severe, because the less active and voluminous the water the less erosive ability it has. Your explanation was not reasonable because we already know water doesn't behave this way, and it is completely unsupported by evidence. Your scenario isn't consistent with the Bible, either, which has water levels gradually lowering, not dropping catastrophically:

quote:

---

Genesis 8: But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. ²Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. ³The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, ⁴and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. ⁵The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

​

⁶After forty days Noah opened a window he had made in the ark ⁷and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth.

---

According to the Bible there was no catastrophic flow of water off the face of the Earth. It was gradual. Even when it comes to the Bible you just make things up.But you failed to address the question that was asked. What is the obvious reasoning for why soft strata form slopes while hard strata form cliffs?--Percy

Just a quick note. This is why we recognize both lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy in geology. They are not the same things.You didn't know that, did you? And you will never understand it either. All you have is uninformed blather.

This series of slides might help her. It's pretty basic and addresses the Methods of Historic Science directly; none of which are to mystify the public and all of which are based on evidence that exists in reality.

You addressed nothing I said and have posted yet another content-free message. You do not have a theory, you have a Biblically inspired fantasy that violates numerous laws of physics and principles of geology. You have a right to advocate for whatever cockamamie ideas you want, but no right to immunity from informed criticism of those ideas.Check the video again. Can you point out for us where the sheets of water split into streams?And do you know why the Japan tsunami eventually ceased its inland flow? Partly it's because the tsunami only provided so much water, and that water could only cover so much landscape, but also partly because the land elevation rose. Even water given a considerable impetus cannot long flow uphill, and since your scenario requires water to flow uphill it could not have happened.--Percy

You quote nothing, so I have no idea what you're talking about. The message you're replying to mentions no video. The video I posted recently in a different message is this one: Watching this video will take very little time. It is pre-positioned at the exact right point, and just watching for 30 seconds will illustrate clearly that flowing sheets of water don't split into streams. So how did they form? Are you saying the elevated regions weren't elevated when the Colorado River originally formed? Which is exactly what conventional geology says? If you're not saying this, then what are you saying? The fact of the matter is that issues are being raised about your scenario that you can't answer, a problem you face constantly. You employ various techniques when faced with this situation, all designed to distract from the topic.Just answer the question. The main Grand Canyon area is uplifted. Water can't flow uphill. How, exactly, did this happen in your scenario?--Percy

The video of the Tsunami also clearly shows how a flood sorts objects and it is NOT how we find the objects sorted in most of reality.In fact the two scenarios are so different that it is immediately obvious to even a marginally trained eye whether what is seen was the result if some flood or rather simply long periods of time.

In response to feedback Faith either adjusts her scenario or becomes very unspecific or even evasive and distracting, and her proposal becomes increasingly vague. Where she does become specific everything does have that Goldilocks quality of being just right, e.g.:

• The rocks above the Kaibab were hard enough for tectonic activity to fracture into blocks that were swept away by the receding waters, but not so hard that they couldn't be easily eroded by flowing water.
• The water was flowing fast enough to cut channels into the soft rock, but not so fast that it couldn't form meanders.
• The canyon rock was soft enough that the water could easily cause boulders of it to fall into the canyon, but somehow these boulders later became the kind of hard rock that only diagenesis can create.

The violations of natural physical laws and known geologic principles just goes on and on. Why she can't see that what she's really invoking is magic, not science, is beyond me.--Percy

You're just making a bald declaration that is self-evidently wrong. Since the top of the geologic column is the Quarternary, and since we're currently in the Quarternary, and since the Quarternary extends on into the future, the sedimentary layers being deposited from this point in time forward are part of the Quarternary period. They're being deposited atop stratigraphic columns that fit into the framework of the geologic column. Nothing else is possible. You are dead wrong. Let us know if you see other possibilities. This is another bald declaration that is also self-evidently wrong. All sedimentation occurs during a time period, whether you believe it was hours or eons. This is just another bald declaration that is again self-evidently wrong. There is no evidence of sliding between the Supergroup and the Tapeats at exposures in the Grand Canyon region, not even a tiny amount of sliding, let alone a massive amount. It wouldn't help you with the cubic miles of disappearing rock anyway, since turning rock into pebbles does not decrease volume. Even turning rock into dust doesn't decrease volume. In fact, given that dust and pebbles don't pack as tightly as solid rock, it would represent greater volume.The Shinumo hills boulder on a Tapeats beach is a typical example of what we see happen on beaches around the world that are lined with hills or mountains. The reality is that you still have no evidence driving your doubts about geology. You just have a bunch of Biblically driven ideas you made up that are magical rather than scientific. Why you don't just invoke God is beyond me. After all, you're already subordinating facts to whatever you think the Bible says. Well, as I keep telling you, if you're going to keep inserting yourself into the conversation then so will I. Congratulations on maintaining your ignorance for so long.--Percy

Well I know erosion happens, we know the sides are eroding today - we can see it. However 'the flood is the obvious explanation' seems pontifical. So the claim was

quote:

---

That canyon could not have been cut by that little river

---

So can you explain the problem with the scenario, with reference to how you know these things, in a manner you think would be befitting the science publications this thread is supposedly focussed on?

One thing that made no sense in the video was the idea that the river carries away the debris from the erosion that is the explanation given for for the widening of the canyon. Since the river only runs in one narrow path through that wide area, which is some eighteen miles at its widest, how is it going to pick up the debris over that whole area?

Kind of like when there's a couple feet of snow in the yard that has been there for a few weeks and suddenly there are these white flakes coming out of the sky and they're landing on the snow and it's getting deeper....but winter is over. We're all done with winter. The white flakes landing on the snow now are entirely different. They're not part of the "snow in the yard" they're just snow. Totally different.