The Grand Canyon: Canyon Formation and Erosion

"Nope. Because sort of noticed that they weren't lithified. Did you really think that we couldn't explain this?"
--No, what I was thinking is that you were misrepresenting my stance on 'flood geology' and your thoughts on lithification thereof. Your the one who asserted, "Well, according to creationist geology, those sediments should have been well lithified by now since simply stacking sediments is what causes lithification."------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------

quote:

---

"Nope. Because sort of noticed that they weren't lithified. Did you really think that we couldn't explain this?"

​

--No, what I was thinking is that you were misrepresenting my stance on 'flood geology' and your thoughts on lithification thereof. Your the one who asserted, "Well, according to creationist geology, those sediments should have been well lithified by now since simply stacking sediments is what causes lithification."

---

You will notice that I did not say ' according to TC's geology.' This was by design. Frankly you've been a bit coy on this thread. It would be good if you made some kind of definite statement.

"Indeed, it is. But you chose to argue this point, except that so far you haven't produced any argument. "
--No, You are the one who made the assertion, this is a logicall fallacy called Shifting the Burden of Proof. All I am asking is for you to support your assertion as I layed out all the way back in post #1."Look I am not asking for a highly detailed account, just an outline covering the major points to see if there is any hope of fitting the deposition of the Grand Canyon rocks into a Flood scenario. If Flood geology is still stuck to the point where it can't do that then it is not even remotely in a position where it could offer a replacement for mainstream geology. If you are in a posiiton where you cannot even explain basics in outline - in an area where you disagree strongly with covnentional geology then you do indeed have a serious problem."
--A serious problem, yes, not a conclusive falsification. Maybe you should open up a new thread for this topic though."And no, by the Duhem-Quine thesis we cannot have an absolute falsification of any theory so I have to stick with reasonable and workable standards and say that Flood Geology is falsified."
--You have yet to show that you even know what you are talking about with those 'rasonable and workable standards', so why should anyone see this statement as credible? And even if a preliminary conclusion can be made that there are unsolved problems, this merely says it is currently labeled as implausible, not falsified. Just support your assertions regarding the Grand Canyon Formation and Lithification."Even the sediments mentioned elsewhere are a problem because your Flood geology demands very rapid lithification of a lot of sediment (for instance, any rubble for "flood rocks" that is found in other "flood rock" formations)."
--No, there has been no conclusive argument produced here which illustrates a problem for lithification in my scenario. So since you came to the conclusion that it is problematic, I am asking you to show that.
--Please elaborate on the "instance, any rubble for "flood rocks" that is found in other "flood rock" formations" segment."But ot go on to your continuied use of insults."
--No insult has been made in the extant of this thread by me."And you are still saying that you "smell prejudice" in a claim that YOU MADE! That is simply ridiculous."
--I did get a good wiff when you made the prejudicial claims."And still going on with the allegations of credulity. Why is it credulous to accpet that an expert opinion is not out by worse than a factor of 100 ? Because you don't want it to be true ?"
--No, because if you cannot understand the assertions of those experts in the relevant fields and reproduce their conclusions based on your understanding of their research and the implications of that which they have taken into consideration, then agreeing with their conclusions is credulous."Give me an argument and I'll look at it"
--Your the one who presented your accusation, please support it without appeals to shifting the burden of proof."And you are still wrong about continental drift - not just the shape of the continents but the shared deposits were all known about. The lack of a mechanism was the only thing that stopped acceptance - as Edge said."
--You have failed to see my point:

quote:

---

"Not really. Early opponents of drift believed simply that there was no acceptable mechanism."
--Exactly! So what happened with further research? They found a mechanism didn't they?

---

"And no, you are NOT discussing the topic you started this thread on - you are just throwing insults to avoid discussing it. If you don't know enough to discuss it then I don't know why you raised the issue in the first place, but if you can't see how counterproductive your approach is then I for one am happy to let you go on destroying your own credibility."
--No insult has been projected, I'm just waiting for you to support your assertion as I have layed out in front of you in post #1."Oh and now false accusations of misrepresentation ? You use insults in place of discussion and expect me to quietly pretend it isn't happening ? No chance. I suggest that YOU drop the insults and try discussion."
--Your assertion was a misrepresentation. Now, since no insults have been projected, please support your accusations, you may refer to post #1 as always.------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------

"I did support my assertion."
--No, you havent. If you think you have, please point me to the post where you have done so and quote yourself. It doesn't exist in this thread."If you want to discuss it further then please provide some basis for doing so. If you have any contrary evidence then please provide it."
--The problem here is that there is nothing to contradict which you have presented here.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------

"Unlike geologists, you look at the Grand Canyon and see youth and rapid formation. What evidence leads you to this interpretion?"
--Well its difficult for me to come to any conclusion exactly on the time's or even how, we cannot say with assurance how running water first fashioned the great valleys and drainage basins of the continents, for the record has been lost in time. What we can do is form a model on the process of erosion and further extrapolate time constraints from the successful model. What is required for me is to formulate a successful model in explanation regarding my time constraints and resources. Geologists look at Grand Canyon and see long spans of time because they have no reason why they can't assume uniformitarian systematics for the process. When you have millions of years, who cares.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------

"Please explain. As far as I can see, his prejudice is against half-baked ideas that have no evidence."
--I will assume it is prejudicial until he can refute what I've said in a former post in that if he, "cannot understand the assertions of those experts in the relevant fields and reproduce their conclusions based on your understanding of their research and the implications of that which they have taken into consideration, then agreeing with their conclusions is credulous.""The problem is that creationism was abandoned a long time ago for good reason. Actually, there is nothing 'young' about it."
--I've explained why this is flawed logic. That 'creationism was abandoned a long time ago for good reason' is no longer a good reason. In order for it to be a good reason you would have to show that what we know about science and what it has revealed is still upheld today, which is certainly not the case."No. You are not comprehending. There was evidence for continental drift. On the other hand there is none for creationism."
--I don't expect there to be any for 'creationism'. I am comprehending, you are merely missing the point. The evidence for continental drift in its early days is similar to what we have for a Global Flood today, in fact, all of that evidence would be highly equivocal to both mainstream and young earth models on continental drift."But I suppose you find this research promising, too."
--Actually, I have no idea, I don't know anything about whale anatomy, let alone what will happen to a person while inside one.."After all, it is not just in early stages, it hasn't even started yet. That should make it especially promising."
--Am I the first one to have started it then? I don't think so. I wasn't the one who came up with the idea of catastrophic plate tectonics."No, we have to guess what you are saying. Why don't you just commit yourself?"
--You mean take sides? Because I am not experienced enough to do so."Oh my, another meaningful statement. And yes, you still are ignoring the big picture."
--Explain."You mean you have no opinion?"
--Why are you asking for 'opinions'? Shouldn't you be asking for objective scientific analysis? My opinions are subjective and drawn from what I find objectively, if I have not done the research, I have no credible opinion.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-06-2003]

"You will notice that I did not say ' according to TC's geology.' "
--Then why did you say it so generally? This would then be directed toward any 'creationist's geology', including anything I might find in the field."Frankly you've been a bit coy on this thread. It would be good if you made some kind of definite statement."
--I'm just waiting for PaulK to support his assertion which he gave as I have layed out for him back in post #1. Of course I don't limit the support to come from him alone, It doesn't seem like he can do so anyways so others can jump on this as well. Coragyps had the right idea in his post #8, all downhill from there though.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------

I have backed up my assertion. You on the other hand have provided precisely nothing other than insults and false accusations.Why should I not reject a "theory" which cannot even offer even an outline explanatio for its own claims ? That is contradicted by much evidence (haven;t you yourself admitted that radiometric dating and the amount of carbonate in the geological column are serious problems ?)And we don't need CONCLUSIVE argumnets - just evidence that the incredibly rapid lithification required by your beliefs is very unlikely. The presence of unlithified sediment of any great age is a seriosu problem for your views because you eend a lot of sediemnt to lithify very, very quickly in rapidly changing conditions.Reworked fragments of rock qre quie common in the geological record - e.g. fragments from the Redwall Limestone in the Surprise formation. I thought you were studying geology - are you really unfamiliar with reworking ?And please don't try to deny your use of insults. Trusting expert opinion to be at least not wildly wrong is quite resonable. Especially in the absence of any contrary evidence of which you have offered precisely none. Come up with some reason to believe that the Redwall Limestone could have lithified in less than 10,000 years and I will retract that part of my claim. Come up with some reason to think that it could lithify in months and I will retract that. But so long as you only respond with insults then I will know that you cannot defend your views.And I did not misunderstand your point apout continental drift. You explicitly denied that continental drift had evidence. Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it.And no, I am not misrepresenting you by calling your responses insults since that is what they are. Attacking me because you cannot mount a rational defence only exposes the weakness of your position.

I posted support in post 2.You however apparently don't want to do any research yourself. Instead you want me to do all the work and then you will attack it. Well I'm not an expert and I don't claim to be an expert so it looks like you just want an easy target - after all you are obviously not in a position to argue knowledgably about the matter, so clearly you are hoping that my lack of expertise will let you "win" regardless of the truth.For all your claim that expert opinion is not enough it is more than you have produced, which is nothing.

"he presence of unlithified sediment of any great age is a seriosu problem for your views because you eend a lot of sediemnt to lithify very, very quickly in rapidly changing conditions."
--I think this illustrates your lack in knowledge and ability to back up your assertion that lithification is a problem, you do not understand the factors in cementation, desication and resultant lithification."I posted support in post 2."
--Wrong, you merely sidestepped the question by asking me questions regarding sedimentary deposition in my model, nothing to do with lithification or the erosion of the Grand Canyon which would support your initial assertion by elaboration(all you did was restate it).

quote:

---

Maybe this would be a good thread to try something that YECs OUGHT to be doing. And that is building up a model of how the strata got there and how they came to be in their current form.

---

"You however apparently don't want to do any research yourself. Instead you want me to do all the work and then you will attack it."
--Well you made the assertion, so yes, you have to do the work."Well I'm not an expert and I don't claim to be an expert so it looks like you just want an easy target - after all you are obviously not in a position to argue knowledgably about the matter, so clearly you are hoping that my lack of expertise will let you "win" regardless of the truth."
--No, this is an open thread and I have been open to others thoughts on the idea. I'm not trying to 'win' anything, only to find solutions to problems and examine the evidence. Anyone can step up to bat if they'd like.------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-06-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-06-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-06-2003]

"And please don't try to deny your use of insults. Trusting expert opinion to be at least not wildly wrong is quite resonable."
--There have been no insults at all on any vitriolic level. You need more than something which might not be "at least not wildly wrong"."Especially in the absence of any contrary evidence of which you have offered precisely none."
--You have not provided any positive evidence in the first place, and what you have presented, you need to elaborate on."Come up with some reason to believe that the Redwall Limestone could have lithified in less than 10,000 years and I will retract that part of my claim."
--Switching the Burden of Proof again."You explicitly denied that continental drift had evidence."
--Wrong..."Flood geology is not just lacking a mexhanism it is also lacking the evidence which continental drift had at the point Wegener proposed it."
--Open up a new thread, i'd be happy to prove you wrong here."And no, I am not misrepresenting you by calling your responses insults since that is what they are."
--And yet, you cannot cite a single one can you?------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------

Perhaps the question wasn't clear, let me ask again.Unlike geologists, you look at the Grand Canyon and see youth and rapid formation. What evidence leads you to this interpretion?------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Who insulted who seems to be the popular topic today. Anyone who feels moderator intervention is appropriate may send email to Admin and make their case. In the meantime, let's get back to the topic of the thread.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

"Perhaps the question wasn't clear, let me ask again.Unlike geologists, you look at the Grand Canyon and see youth and rapid formation. What evidence leads you to this interpretion?"
--Perhaps I wasn't either. I havent come to this interpretation, this isn't a topic where I have done sufficient research in to come to such a confident conclusion.-------------------
The OYSI.Archive
-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-06-2003]

TC says:

quote:

---

--Perhaps I wasn't either. I havent come to this interpretation, this isn't a topic where I have done sufficient research in to come to such a confident conclusion.

​

...

​

--Why are you asking for 'opinions'? Shouldn't you be asking for objective scientific analysis? My opinions are subjective and drawn from what I find objectively, if I have not done the research, I have no credible opinion.

---

Ummmmmm, could someone explain to me just what are we doing here?