Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.

---

But, TB, that highland was hundreds of miles away in some cases. How did the area get repopulated in less than a week? And how did forests spring up over virtually overnight? And why were no angiosperms caught up in the first surges? This is not a possibility. It is a wish.

quote:

---

Your trying to morph our scenario into impossibility.

---

Negative. You have no trouble doint that yourself. Why did these tidal surges leave only one current direction (according to you)? Why did they uniformly form sand channels that just happened to show current direcions down the paleoslope?

quote:

---

We're not allowed to have surges of limited extent even though the geo-column talks of cyclical innundations of limited and changing extent.

---

Simply because the processes take longer than you think.

quote:

---

Why not? Simply becasue you want to make our scenario sound ridiculous.

---

Again, you need no help at this.

quote:

---

You wont let us have a middle ground.

---

There is no compromise with absurdity.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sorry, but this sounds like whining. Come up with something better. Do you think that Darwin just gave up and said "Geez, guys, just give me a break, will you"?

quote:

---

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.

---

Indeed you will. The power of the mind to delude itself it practically limitless.

quote:

---

^ 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.

---

But you have to have a source for this high ground and in the creationist flood model the ground is what is being deposited by the surges so there is no "higher ground" before the next surge deposits it.The Vishnu formation underlies the Grand Canyon and it is flat with little or no local relief. The rocks above the Vishnu surface are all sedimentary. They were deposited in Layers even if they were deposited before or after the flood in your model. Each layer covered the other completely as it was deposited from there on up, over vast areas, though of course erosion has occurred and some layers are unconformable. The point is that in the area of the Colorado Plateau the high ground that you want to use to preserve the animals had not yet been deposited at the time it is needed to preserve the animals. There is no Genesis rock sticking up there for the animals to have been hiding on. This is only one reason your scenario is absurd but it is a clear one.I will out of town next Sunday and won’t be posting again until at least then.Randy

RandyYou have made no attempt to demonstrate from Paleozoic 3D topographical maps that there was no high ground in the region. We all know that these formations are continuous and flat but that does not have to mean absolutely everywhere! You are simply assuming it.

I had noticed that Adminquility (which kinda sounds like a bureaucratic porcupine) had two messages on record, but only one message to be found. So I went to search the location of TB's next later post, to see if there was a message gap nearby. And there it is, at number 78 of this topic!See what sometimes happens when you have two modes available, to operate under? Sometimes something in the system will try to switch you to the one other that what you wanted.I bet what happened at message 78, is that the TB name was all set to post the message, and did a preview. When he did the preview, the system reset his identity back to Adminquility, because that was used in his previous posting. Thus, Adminquility did the posting, realized what had happened, and deleted the message.I think I've had that happen at least a couple of times, except that it was that minnemooseus ended up posting an admin type message.TB, just wait. The system will also do the switch-o-roo (not to be confused with the Kang-o-roo) to you when your trying to do an admin thing.Adminnemooseus (big clumsy looking bureaucratic deer)------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

^ Very good detective work, Moose. BTW, are you the same Det. Moose that is investigating that sniper case?

First off, sand is not only found in deserts, but in many various environments throughout the world (obviously). Second, the comment about the fern in that sometimes (quite often in fact), so-called "clear evidence" is blatantly, though perhaps not intentionally, mistaken for what it really is. Third, as I recall, according to the geologic record supported by evolutionists, much of North America was, at one time, covered by a vast inland sea. In addition, in much of the early eras of the earth (according to the theories you apparently support), much of the earth was swampland and marsh. Don't tell me you've never seen sand or a fern in a marsh. The only conclusion I can make from this is that either the world was not swampy, or that the "tracks" POSSIBLY could have been a fern.I have no problem with the teaching of evolution, etc. in schools. The problem I have is that other perfectly viable theories are blatantly ignored.I have two questions for you: are you an atheist? If so, why do you insist on propogating your views? If there is no God, there is no afterlife, so what does it matter to you if I choose to believe something different? I'd really like to know why you do what you do.Ciao!------------------
"For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

What exactly, can be classified as a "depositional environment"? Sediments CAN be deposited anywhere, pretty much, but many places they would not remain stationary long enough to harden.Very fine sand or clay? Let's assume a spherical shape (or a cube, or whatever). The volume is calculated as length times width times height (dealing with the cube). The volume times the density gives us its mass. Now, we find the surface area on one half of the particle (only one half can be exposed to wind from one direction at any given time), which is guaranteed to be smaller. This measurement is in an approximate proportion to the ability of wind to apply a force to the particle. Now, let's say we cut this cube into eight equal parts, each with exactly half the dimensions of the original. The mass of each is now one-eighth the original mass, but the surface area is only one-fourth! Thus, we conclude that the smaller the particle, the more wind can act per milligram (or whatever unit of mass, etc.) of particle. More wind force = more blowing particles.I remember from my days on the playground how the dust on the kickball fields would blow madly about with even the slightest breeze. The same wind force acting on the beach by my house would hardly budge a grain or two. Have you ever seen grains of sand floating around your house? Well, I've seen tiny little dust particles doing just that. If the sediments which formed the "tracks" were so small, they would have been quite literally "blown away" by the passage of the (relatively) gigantic spider. But if a stationary object made the "tracks", while being weighed down by water, the dust particles would not have been moved, but rather held in place by the object above.I don't know about you, but it just doesn't make sense to me that wind has less power on dust than it has on sand.Adios!------------------
"For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

[QUOTE][B]Second, the comment about the fern in that sometimes (quite often in fact), so-called "clear evidence" is blatantly, though perhaps not intentionally, mistaken for what it really is.[/QUOTE][/B]That's why science is tentative. However, in science, everything goes through a process of peer review. While it is not impossible, for your objection to be valid, you must explain why it has fooled not just one geologist but dozens of geologists and paleontologists. [QUOTE][B]Third, as I recall, according to the geologic record supported by evolutionists, much of North America was, at one time, covered by a vast inland sea.[/QUOTE][/B]Yes. There have been times when that is true. There have been other times when most of NA was a terrestrial environment. [QUOTE][B]much of the earth was swampland and marsh. Don't tell me you've never seen sand or a fern in a marsh.[/QUOTE][/B]That is also true. But your theory is dead on arrival because this particular soil horizon formed in a desert. We know that because desert sediments and marsh sediments (and fossils) and paleosols and sedimentary facies are markedly different. [QUOTE][B]The only conclusion I can make from this is that either the world was not swampy[/QUOTE][/B]At no time in history was the Earth ever nothing but swamp, and there are hundreds of millions of years in Earth history where global climate has varied. There were very warm periods and there were ice ages. Right now we seem to be somewhere in between, but still colder than Earth normally is.Right now there are fossils forming in the Everglades, and if some future geologist dug up those fossils he could determine that it the Everglades in the this part of the Holocene were swampy but he could not use that single data point to conclude that Earth was a giant swamp. That is the error in your reasoning, that a desert-deposited environment refutes some part of our understanding of Earth history.

[QUOTE][B]What exactly, can be classified as a "depositional environment"? Sediments CAN be deposited anywhere, pretty much, but many places they would not remain stationary long enough to harden.[/QUOTE][/B]To prevent them from lithification the depositional environment would have to change to one of erosion. While this happens (and is the cause of unconformities) it is not always the case. If it were, fossils would be much more uncommon. [QUOTE][B]The mass of each is now one-eighth the original mass, but the surface area is only one-fourth! Thus, we conclude that the smaller the particle, the more wind can act per milligram (or whatever unit of mass, etc.) of particle. More wind force = more blowing particles.[/QUOTE][/B]But before the particle can even be exposed to wind it has to be large enough to jut out of the sediment layer and be carried off.You can disbelieve this all you want but it is a basic principle of geology and is easily modeled in the lab and is found in introductory university geology textbooks. In fact I've seen films of it being modeled in the lab, in this particular case, it was used in work being done on Martian eolian features. The interesting thing there is that very find sediments have to be physically disturbed by a bouncing coarse particle before they are picked up by the wind. [QUOTE][B]If there is no God, there is no afterlife, so what does it matter to you if I choose to believe something different? I'd really like to know why you do what you do.[/QUOTE][/B]Nobody is interested in what your personal beliefs are, but if you want to teach something that is wrong in science classes then we have a problem.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JediKnight1985:
First off, sand is not only found in deserts, but in many various environments throughout the world (obviously).

---

But we are not just talking about sand. Eolian sand dunes covering large regions are usually found in deserts.

quote:

---

Second, the comment about the fern in that sometimes (quite often in fact), so-called "clear evidence" is blatantly, though perhaps not intentionally, mistaken for what it really is.

---

Gee, I've got to get you to talk to Helen Setterfield. According to her, if it looks like a seafull footprint in Triassic rocks then there were obviously seagulls in the Triassic.

quote:

---

Third, as I recall, according to the geologic record supported by evolutionists, much of North America was, at one time, covered by a vast inland sea.

---

Unfortunately for the creationist position, 'much of' is not the same as 'all of' North America.

quote:

---

In addition, in much of the early eras of the earth (according to the theories you apparently support), much of the earth was swampland and marsh. Don't tell me you've never seen sand or a fern in a marsh.

---

Actually, swamps are not well-known for their sand dunes.

quote:

---

The only conclusion I can make from this is that either the world was not swampy, or that the "tracks" POSSIBLY could have been a fern.

---

Well, anything is possible, but some are vanishingly unlikely. And, no, not all of the world was swampy.

quote:

---

I have no problem with the teaching of evolution, etc. in schools. The problem I have is that other perfectly viable theories are blatantly ignored.

---

I do not know what those theories are. Perhaps you can do better than most of the creationists whom we deal with.

quote:

---

I have two questions for you: are you an atheist?

---

No.However, according to some fundamentalists, I am probably worse than an atheist.

quote:

---

If so, why do you insist on propogating your views?

---

Actually, I don't. I just enjoy the debate. And it IS easier when one has evidence on one's side.

quote:

---

If there is no God, there is no afterlife, so what does it matter to you if I choose to believe something different? I'd really like to know why you do what you do.

---

It doesn't matter to me. You can believe what you want. I am simply here to help you understand mainstream geology so that you will (hopefully) not be so embarrassed in the future by repeating some nonsense you have learned from a professional creationist. I'm here really for your own good.

[QUOTE][B]Eolian sand dunes[/QUOTE][/B]Eolian sand dunes? Are there other kinds?(The usual brains I pick are in Denver) [QUOTE][B]According to her[/QUOTE][/B]A YEC? [QUOTE][B]if it looks like a seafull footprint in Triassic rocks then there were obviously seagulls in the Triassic.[/QUOTE][/B]As opposed to something that evolved into a seagull later.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

e: Eolian sand dunes

---

​

Eolian sand dunes? Are there other kinds?

​

(The usual brains I pick are in Denver)

---

Yes, there are dunes that form in shallow water as offshore bars. They have a very different grain size distribution than eolian dunes.

quote:

---

e: According to her

​

A YEC?

---

A noted YEC. Find her over at the Baptist Board if you care to venture there.

quote:

---

e: if it looks like a seafull footprint in Triassic rocks then there were obviously seagulls in the Triassic.

---

As opposed to something that evolved into a seagull later. [/quote]Nope, seagulls. They were here in the Triassic. The bible say so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy

​

You have made no attempt to demonstrate from Paleozoic 3D topographical maps that there was no high ground in the region. We all know that these formations are continuous and flat but that does not have to mean absolutely everywhere! You are simply assuming it.

---

I don't need to demonstrate 3D paleozic topo maps. The Visnu formation has virtually no relief and overlaying flat layers are continous everywhere in the vicinity and you need these animals to be close to come in between the 300 foot high "surges" that supposedly deposited the "sand waves". You are invoking a prexisiting "high ground" for animals to survive on while previous "surges deposited thousands of feet of sediment and you need it to then disappear without a trace after all the sediments were deposited. There never was any such "high ground" in the neighborhood. You are obviously incapable of logical analysis of this subject.
Randy

^ You obviously expect us to believe your hearsay on a critical point.I have read and skipped through dozens of stratigraphy books. I would simply not be able to make the statements you are making from them. Unless I am mistaken, you have simply gained an impression about the 'canyon strata and are expounding gross simplifications.I often do that too - but at least I'm arguing feasability there not outright ruling out a model like you are.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I have read and skipped through dozens of stratigraphy books. I would simply not be able to make the statements you are making from them. Unless I am mistaken, you have simply gained an impression about the 'canyon strata and are expounding gross simplifications.

---

And your explanation of animals repopulating large regions in a matter of days between surges is not a gross simplification? As I remember you suggested that high ground within a short distance is the solution to your problem. Randy has simply asked you to explain. Are you saying then that you have no supportign evidence of such 'high ground?'