Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood

quote:

---

Now, the real "Admin" comments:
Are not these plate tectonic discussions rather far off the topic of this thread. Maybe there's a better place for it.
Adminnemooseus

---

I agree. I am STILL waiting for TB to tell us the location of the "high ground" the animals and insects hung out on while all those layers of sediments below the Coconinos were deposited and the 300 foot deep water brought in "surges" of sand from 200-300 miles to the north to form the Coconinos.Of course I also wonder how 300 foot deep water moving 2 to 4 miles an hour carries 10,000 cubic miles of sand for 200-300 miles without dumping it anywhere and then spreads it neatly and uniformly in dune like formations over 200,000 thousand square miles. I also wonder why the animals and insects would keep coming down from their supposed high ground to get wiped out by successive surges. I am wondering how you get these massive surges from the north as well. Doesn't seem to me that tides would do that. But all those are just other impossiblities along with the impossibity of animals surving all that prior deposition and being around to make tracks.So where was the high ground??Randy

RandyHow can we possibly have such a discussion without a geo-map sitting in front of us. Without that it is too easy for me to come up with hypotheses. Of course both of us need to answer where the sandstone came from.And where were the animals while the sand was laid down? At high ground of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy

​

How can we possibly have such a discussion without a geo-map sitting in front of us. Without that it is too easy for me to come up with hypotheses. Of course both of us need to answer where the sandstone came from.

​

And where were the animals while the sand was laid down? At high ground of course.

---

Except that all the ground around there is part of the Colorado Plateau and was supposedly being deposited by the flood at the time so there was no high ground. Remember that thousands of feet of sediment were supposedly deposited in this area by the flood prior to the deposition of the Coconinos. This is where the whole "high ground" scenario falls flat on it face. It seems to me that any gound near there higher than the Coconinos had to be deposited after the Coconinos since it is laying on top of them so it won't really help you at all.
Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
How can we possibly have such a discussion without a geo-map sitting in front of us. Without that it is too easy for me to come up with hypotheses. Of course both of us need to answer where the sandstone came from.

---

Pardon me for the intrusion, but I cannot tell that you have come up with ANYTHING. If it is so easy, please proceed.

quote:

---

And where were the animals while the sand was laid down? At high ground of course.

---

I believe the question was something like 'where was the high ground?' Oh, I get it. Where the animals were...

^I already came up with the easy hypotheses (they were on high ground eg, at a distance if necessary) but it is absolutely ludicrous to try and have a more detailed discussion without the maps sitting in front of us! It's like a planning meeting without a calander so far. Becasue it is such a complex reconstrcution I beleive it would be difficult to prove your point conclusively so I personally feel it is a waste of time. But if you guys want to try and prove that animals could not have migrated inbetween surges go for it but I wont spend time on it until you do since its your point.What I am saying is a priori reasonable. You want to rule it out in detail? Go for it.You see, I never claimed proof. I claimed feasability.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^I already came up with the easy hypotheses (they were on high ground eg, at a distance if necessary) but it is absolutely ludicrous to try and have a more detailed discussion without the maps sitting in front of us! It's like a planning meeting without a calander so far. Becasue it is such a complex reconstrcution I beleive it would be difficult to prove your point conclusively so I personally feel it is a waste of time. But if you guys want to try and prove that animals could not have migrated inbetween surges go for it but I wont spend time on it until you do since its your point.

​

What I am saying is a priori reasonable. You want to rule it out in detail? Go for it.

​

You see, I never claimed proof. I claimed feasability.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]

---

JM: No, you've shown a pipe dream. No data.CheersJoe Meert

Joe, on the detailed reconstruction of the geo-column via the flood? Yes it's a pipedream at this point.On the systematic hints of catastrophe and globality in the column? That's well established.And your explanations of any bed are also 'just so' as well. You simply find an analogy with a modern system and, hey presto, that's how it got there regardless of how good or bad that analogy is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, on the detailed reconstruction of the geo-column via the flood? Yes it's a pipedream at this point.

​

On the systematic hints of catastrophe and globality in the column? That's well established.

​

And your explanations of any bed are also 'just so' as well. You simply find an analogy with a modern system and, hey presto, that's how it got there regardless of how good or bad that analogy is.

---

JM: I am a geologist who has (a) read the relevant literature; (b) looked at a whole bunch of rocks and (c) found your explanations sophomoric. What you need to show, if you want any respect at all, is that you know how to research the subject and that you understand the most basic elements of the theory you wish to depose. So far, not much substance amongst all your rhetoric.CheersJoe Meert

^ While I am interested in researching some of these questions myself I am also a realist and I am prepared to quote sources I have read and bounce them of you guys.Others can judge whether you are simply responding negatively on principle or actually commenting usefully. IMO you do both but more of the former. I am not on such a mission that I feel I have to prove to everyone that I am right and you are wrong. I am also not simply trying to sow doubt. I am in a middle ground where I am prepared to share what I have learned so far and let others judge your responses for themselves.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-21-2002]

quote:

---

I already came up with the easy hypotheses (they were on high ground eg, at a distance if necessary) but it is absolutely ludicrous to try and have a more detailed discussion without the maps sitting in front of us! It's like a planning meeting without a calander so far. Becasue it is such a complex reconstrcution I beleive it would be difficult to prove your point conclusively so I personally feel it is a waste of time.

---

It seems to me that the layers of the Colorado Plateau in the Canyon area are pretty well mapped out. It should be easy for you to find the pre-flood high ground if any existed. Of course it doesn’t.

quote:

---

But if you guys want to try and prove that animals could not have migrated inbetween surges go for it but I wont spend time on it until you do since its your point.

---

No you were the one who came up with the ridiculous idea and now you see that there is no way for you to support it with facts.The animals migrated from where? We are talking about the Colorado Plateau here remember? The Grand Canyon area is the highest part so there is no higher ground around.and how could there have been any higher ground around before all the layers of the Colorado plateau were deposited? You also don’t have much time in your scenario and the animals must come in repeatedly so they can’t come from to far away. I think the nearest significantly higher ground is probably in the Rockies which might be a bit of a trip and I thought there weren't supposed to be any really high mountains around before the flood anyway.Now you need high ground not just for the 300-foot surges depositing sand but for the animals to survive on while all those flood deposits below the Coconinos were deposited. This is the point creationists never seem to address. Austin at least starts with the Tapeats Sandstones as flood deposits so the animals have to survive somewhere while the
Tapeats Sandstone,
Bright Angel Shale,
Muav Limestone,
Grand Wash Dolomites,
Temple Butte Limestone,
Redwall Limestone,
Surprise Canyon Formation,
Supai Group
Hermit Shale
Are all deposited and then survive these surges. The only higher ground around than the Hermit Shale is made of materials deposited after the Hermit Shale including of course the Coconinos which lay on the Hermit Shale with no big spikes of "high" ground" of prexisting rock stuck up through them as far as I know. In fact I think the Coconinos are fairly flat over a pretty big area.Here are some nice pictures of the Canyonhttp://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/grandcanyon.htmlThis page also gives quite a bit of detail on the sedimentary and underlying layers in the Plateau as well as demolishing the creationist position on the Plateau sediments as flood deposits in some detail.
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htmAll the relief you see came from erosion after the relatively flat layers totaling thousands of feet thick were deposited. Where are the mile high (above the base of the sediments) Genesis rock layers for animals to survive on while all those sediments were deposited? They are not there and they never were. You seem to want to put animals on ground that wasn’t even there at the time according to your own model.

quote:

---

What I am saying is a priori reasonable. You want to rule it out in detail? Go for it.

​

You see, I never claimed proof. I claimed feasability.

---

What you are saying is totally absurd not feasible. If you think you can support it in detail go for it. So far you haven’t done any such thing.
Randy

RandyYou've provided no data on the 3D topography of the entire region during the Paleozoic depositions.You are simply stating how you think it will turn out - just as I am. Our biases are obvious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy

​

You've provided no data on the 3D topography of the entire region during the Paleozoic depositions.

​

You are simply stating how you think it will turn out - just as I am. Our biases are obvious.

---

Your bias has led you into absurdity. You see the strata that are there. They are pretty uniform over very large regions except where erosion has occured and they are very thick in total. They are decribed in some detail in the web site I pointed to before.http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htmThe paleozoic formation are described on the second pagehttp://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htmHow were any strata deposited to form "high ground" without killing any animals around during single great flood even if it did surge? If there was high solid rock it should still be there. Where is it?You are the one who made the claim of high ground. Why don't you show us some data showing where it may have been. I don't think you can do it because it only exists in the minds of YECs.Randy

RandyWhy should the high ground 'still be there'? The Mesozoic and possible Cenozoic stages of the flood were still to come. Lots of opporuntity for catastrophic erosion. Mountains have eroded away in that 'time'. I'm sure that even in a mainstream context no-one could credibly claim to know the precise 3D topography of that region. And you're two steps away. You don't even have the maps sitting in front of you.You're claiming stuff from bias just as I am. But you're claiming proof of my being wrong whereas I'm simply arguing feasibility.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-22-2002]

quote:

---

Why should it 'still be there'? The Mesozoic and possible Cenozoic stages of the flood were still to come. Lots of opporuntity for catastrophic erosion. I'm sure that even in a mainstream context no-one could credibly claim to know the precise 3D topgaphy of that region. And your two steps away. You don't even have the maps sitting in front of you.

---

There is an expression, I think from Bob Dylan that goes You don’t need a weather man to tell which way the wind blows. One can look at the geology of the Colorado Plateau and tell that your high ground scenario is absurd without precise 3D topography if one is not desperate to cling to a myth that science abandoned 200 years ago.I suppose now you are going to tell us that therapods that left tracks in the Wingate, Kayenta and Navajo formations were hanging out on even higher ground. How far will you go with this nonsense?

quote:

---

Your claiming stuff from bias just as I am. But you're claiming proof of my being wrong whereas I'm simply arguing feasibility.

---

I am claiming stuff from a logical analysis of the situation and you are making up a wild fantasy with nothing to support it. As I said before, I hope you don’t think the animals were in the same highlands that had 10,000 cubic miles of sand washed from them to form the Coconinos.Another thing I find very amusing about all this is that creationists often claim there were no really high mountains before the flood but here you are putting animals at least several thousand feet up on high ground to survive flood surges and deposition of thousand of feet of sediment. Self-conflicting explanations seem to be the essence of YEC and this subject illustrates it well.Randy

^ The animals only needed to be high enough to not get caught up in the current surge. This continued until the highest mountins were covered. As simple as that. Completely consistent and a priori plausible unless one doesn't want to consider the possibility.Your trying to morph our scenario into impossibility. We're not allowed to have surges of limited extent even though the geo-column talks of cyclical innundations of limited and changing extent. Why not? Simply becasue you want to make our scenario sound ridiculous. You wont let us have a middle ground. When we talk of a global flood we're not allowed to have surges, when we have surges we can't have a global flood. We'll have the flood of our own choosing thank-you - one that explains the data and is consistent with Scripture. You can play with strawmen if you like.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-22-2002]