Does it make you all feel good to beat up on the creationist? I think you particularly just enjoy beating up on people. That's really all this "debate" is about.
Perhaps Faith can explain entire features similar to the grand canyon buried underground. Perhaps she can explain the rusting of the earth as oxygen first became available in the atmosphere. Perhaps she can explain the Oklo natural reactor and how it possibly could have occurred recently. Perhaps she can explain the absence of short-lived radioactive isotopes. Perhaps she can explain the difference in the amount of energy stored in fossil fuels with that of the living biosphere. Perhaps she can explain the shorter days recorded in fossil coral beds and their age agreeing with the passage of time required for the earth moon system to slow the rotation of the earth by that amount. Someone needs to understand falsification.
With respect to the carving out of the grand canyon over eons of time vs the flood doing it perhaps the easiest thing to consider to falsify the flood scenario is to consider an energy accounting of the process.
It takes a certain amount of energy to cut away that much rock and form a canyon. Where did the energy come from with a flood scenario? Calculate the volume of water involved in the cutting of the canyon by the flood. Calculate the difference in height from the starting position to the bottom of the canyon. That amount of potential energy is available to be turned into kinetic energy to cut the canyon. Is it enough? 'Don't think so, but it's just a gut feeling at this point. But that should make my case more favorable to the masses who decide what constitutes reality based upon gut feelings, no?
I imagine Faith will complain that the rock was soft when it was cut. Of course the erosion of the side walls of the canyon would be very different if that were the case.
I see Percy has posted along the same lines while I wrote my post:
But it means that when this catastrophic flow of water crossed the region after the flood that it cut to depth of 13,500 feet below sea level.
Which makes the energy accounting even more cartoonish.
Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
So at the point when the flood filled up to the 7,000 ft topo elevation the path to the south would have ~37% of the capacity of the fully carved canyon, which would still be a substantial erosive force ... and yet there is no canyon there, there is no evidence of an erosion channel across this path at all.
And the path to the north would have 111% of the capacity of the fully carved canyon, more than the canyon, and yet ... and yet there is no canyon there, there is no evidence of an erosion channel across this path at all.
Consider this: At the current rate of erosion by the Colorado River, in the 70 million years it's supposed to have been flowing it would have eroded away one cubic million miles of material. Quite a bit more than the Grand Canyon ever contained.
Hi Faith, If you wouldn't mind. Please provide your source(s). Thank you.
Like this:
quote:The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.
Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
So now I have to answer every challenge ever made up against the Flood.
Um, yes you do. Or someone from the creationist camp has to do it. And it has to form a cohesive single model rather than a collection of ad hoc answers that contradict each other.
To be successful the model cannot be falsified by any data whatsoever. But unfortunately it is falsified by mountains of evidence. Once falsified it is off the list of possible models.
If you or some other creationist finds some area of geology that you are able to falsify, more power to you. But that does not shoehorn in the great flood of Noah as the default replacement. That has already been falsified. Science would survive and adapt the model to the data as the picture of the reconstruction of the past history of the earth becomes more accurate.
Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
You have been accused of murder. Details at the crime scene seem to point to you. A scarf was accidentally left behind that is identical to one you own and you can't seem to find yours. Other details of a similar nature point to you. But to your relief the DNA evidence comes back clearing you as a possible suspect. The case against you has been falsified. Does it make any sense for the prosecutor to find motives now as to why you might want this person dead?
An EXCELLENT description of the clever ploys you evo/old earthers use to eliminate the truth about the Flood and maintain your delusion. Beautifully put.
So explain to me now how the principal of falsification is "a ploy" to eliminate truth. Is it *truth* that you were the murderer despite the DNA evidence? If the evidence cleared you, are you yet the *true* murderer? After all, you have a neighbor that strongly believes, even has a strong conviction felt deep within her soul, that you committed the crime. She obviously is deluded but curiously(credit to RAZD) she rants on about how those who accept the evidence are deluded because frankly she doesn't understand the DNA evidence and strongly believes that something simply must be wrong with it.
That's a LOT of eroded material, certainly a million cubic miles of the stuff but even the scaled-down version Percy came up with. Where did it all go?
Since you and I are not geologists should we not defer to those who have spent their lives studying the data to answer that? Or should we stick to our beliefs upon the matter and use our gut feelings based upon a shallow comprehension of all the details involved in the principles of geology? http://www.psychologytoday.com/...ng-style-and-belief-in-god
Google is your friend. Do you study both sides of the argument or just pay attention to the sites that prop up your current beliefs?
quote:But a greater threat, according to Fuis, is the sedimentary structure of the Salton Trough itself. Excavate this basin of rocks and soil swept down over the millennia from the Rocky Mountains and you’d have a canyon larger than the Grand Canyon.
This formation, sediment nearly 9 miles deep, can trap earthquake energy and amplify seismic waves, resulting in longer, more intense shaking. No one has measured wave speeds in the basin until now.
And there is your answer. The Grand Canyon is in another spreading zone trench. The one splitting off Baja California from Mexico. The one that would have the Gulf of California extending up past the Salton Sea. Were it not for a Grand Canyon Sized load of sediments over 9 miles deep.
Of course this is just more evidence against your model. Unless the geology of this area reveals that all this deposit occurred rapidly. Any wagers on that?
So you believe the creationists have an advantage here? It all went down the drain. After replacing the stopper God has done an excellent job of hiding its location from scientists. I guess the hollow earth theory has some merit then? As that conveniently provides a space for all this load of material to disappear to.
Of course if it didn't go down the drain then this appears to be an issue for young earthers as there is only 6,000 years to disperse the material rather than millions of years.
1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely: a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
Uh huh, wouldn't that depend on the kind of terrain the Flood was acting upon? The GC is cut into an uplift, something no river could have done all by its little self, since it would prefer to go around things that are higher than its little self. You get your wide relatively shallow beds on your flatter landscapes.
Not really. The flood waters are higher than the uplift else they would go around. So they go over - everywhere - and would fan out as in any other situation if it weren't for the fact that this is a hypothetical global flood. So they would not fan out, neither would they form a canyon. They would simply continue to lower in height everywhere. From the highest point of the uplift to the level of the flood waters there is no obstruction to any flow of water. Water merely moves to a lower level if there is one. But a global flood has no lower level to flow to. So the level everywhere merely drops. It would be like draining the tub after taking a bath. I suppose that according to your theory we could make a little dam of mud across the tub and as the tub drains it will cut a valley through that mud. As long as the level of the water in the tub exceeds that ridge height nothing would happen. It would merely (slowly) flow over the top. Perhaps when the level fell below the height of the ridge the remaining water would be dammed. Perhaps if there is a weak spot in the dam the remaining water could cut a canyon through it. But dam it(misspelled on purpose) this is a higher spot so the water remaining will simply flow around it as you have already observed rather than cut its way through. Why? It takes the path of least resistance.
The terrain is decidedly different in the two places. You have basalt in Washington and sedimentary rock in Arizona, you have a relatively flat terrain in Washington but an uplift in the GC area that the Flood had to cut into
Why does it have to cut into it? If the water level is higher than the ridge it simply goes over the top as it does everywhere else since everywhere else is lower than the ridge. If it is lower than the ridge then it goes around since there are lower spots than the ridge to flow to. Is this trapped body of water you are imagining spilling in such a manner over some lip that it falls squarely onto the high part of the ridge? Is it something like Niagara Falls and this high spot just happens to be at its base?
Anyway, there is no problem with the "same Flood" both laying down the strata and then at the very end as it is receding cutting the canyon.
I've already posted my objections to your flood cutting a canyon above. You have posted more than myself in this geology thread and therefore are more knowledgeable on the subject than I am so I will now defer to your instruction in a matter of flood geology. You say the flood laid down the geologic column. My question for you is the rain and waters rising from the earth had to interact with the existing topography of the earth in such a manner to lay down one kind of deposit 1st everywhere on the planet, followed by another kind of deposit everywhere and so on. Doesn't that imply that the earth had to be layered in some manner previous to the flood? So one type of layer was washed away then another type of layer etc? What caused these layers in the earths structure previous to the flood? There was no tectonic activity previous to the flood in your model and no great passage of time. Is it simply that God likes layers and said "Let there be layers" when the earth was formed? Perhaps that is why we like layer cakes since we are formed in his image? And how precise these layers must have been such that the rising flood waters dissolved one layer at the same time all over the planet before starting on the next layer so that there are no gradual transitions between the layers in the geologic column. That's just amazing and a wonder of the creative power of God. I think he must have been showing off just a little bit, don't you?
I have to wonder though why in some places some layers go missing in the geologic column. There really is no flow involved in a global flood where the water level rises everywhere. It came from rain and from deep underground. A low spot might get flow if it is surrounded by some sort of a lip. But it shouldn't get any deposits should it? The water on the other side of such an obstruction is not flowing it is standing water.
Is it due to that wonderful ice canopy? The one that withstands meteor strikes and remains centered over the earth even though there is no gravitational mechanism to accomplish that feat. An object inside a spherical shell experiences no gravitational pull relative to that shell. Wouldn't it drift up against the earth?
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : Pasted the wrong link for Faith to browse.
3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
No, but all that occurs on the flat plain above the main part of the canyon, and rivers DO meander on flat plains. The Flood waters would have dissipated after scouring off the plain first and then we'd have the river left over to meander across it.
So you still have the issue of holding back enough flood water in a basin to cut the river channel.
I do doubt all this assertion we've heard here that only very slow rivers make meanders, I rather suspect the river had some power to it and did some deep cutting of the meanders on this flat plain, but I can't prove so oh well.
Please see the previous link again if you haven't looked at it yet. http://www.psychologytoday.com/...ng-style-and-belief-in-god Assertion? You think that is how geologists arrive at their conclusions? No consideration of physics? Is this some projecting on your part? The facts about river flow rates and deposition and meanders are just some uninformed speculation on the part of geologists? Really? And no other geologists call them on it? Wow, just wow. I'm surprised at how long they've been capable of pulling off this charade just to collect a paycheck.
4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
I think probably a lot of it DID slump, starting with the first cracks in the uppermost strata. Tons of broken up strata would have caved into the cracks and been washed down to cut the canyon, eventually widening the canyon a great deal. But the stack was over two miles deep when the cutting would have begun, and one would expect that the weight and pressure should have done some solidifying of the sediments so that the walls that were left after the carving stayed put.
5. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
Meaning what? I have a completely different idea of what happened beneath the canyon, but many creationists accept it as already formed before the Flood as reported here. But I still am not getting the point here about the supposed hardness of the rocks.
I suppose it has to do with the creationist argument that a body of trapped water after the flood receded could easily cut the canyon since the deposits hadn't hardened off completely.
6. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.
How they trust their own weak little imaginations. A lot of water draining into cracks in the upper strata would cut out all kinds of cracks alongside the main one.
These are as deep as the main one. According to your model the main one has a trapped body of water to cut it. But now in your imagination damp soil is sufficient to provide enough water to cut the side canyons?
7. Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.
Why not?
I wondered about this one myself. It only makes sense as an argument if the moved delta sediments are progressive with the passage of time. IOW if an artist painted a picture on a divided ground and the ground or surface he paints on is slid along the division after the painting is complete there would be no issue to discuss. But if the artist is a slow painter and the ground is moving slowly while he paints some brush strokes across the surface get separated more than others and this proves that the painting did not occur as a single quick event.
8. The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.
This isn't very clear either. Not sure why the volume of water would have to be a large as the canyon itself in order to be an effective carving instrument. After all, if they think an ordinary river cut it, why not a flooding lake that is ALMOST the volume of the canyon. But my own view is that it was probably the receding flood waters themselves that cut the canyon. I do appreciate Austin's idea about the lake though because he says it would have been contained in the dish-shaped Colorado plateau, which means the flood waters would have been somewhat restrained from washing off the plateau as well, and available to cut the canyon. It's just a matter of more water. The lake water might nevertheless have been enough.
Here it is again for you. http://www.psychologytoday.com/...ng-style-and-belief-in-god You have only so much potential energy stored in the supposed lake. The cutting of the canyon requires a certain amount of energy to break off the rock and carry it away. It is simply physics. You can see the argument if the lake is nothing more than a bowl of water, right? That isn't going to cut it. Drawing the line as to what is enough is not a matter of gut feeling conjecture. It is a matter of physics. A river running over vast amounts of time represents a greater total volume of water. In fact this really disproves your model quite nicely.
9. If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?
One must assume the circumstances were unique to the area.
Yes, well too much assumption as it is I'm afraid for the creationist model. This is necessary as there seems to be no evidence from which to make the claims being put forward by creationists. But that is admittedly the nature of apologetics. Simply provide for the possibility and everyone remains happy in the creationist camp. But the problems arise when they are faced with conflicting evidence.
There's that seventy million years that would have produced that one million cubic miles of erosion. Funny they don't mention that as reported in Austin's book. If Percy's right that it's been officially reduced to five million years it's still a lot of erosion that nobody has been able to locate at the foot of the canyon.
This one's a repeat. How do creationists who have even far less time to work with get rid of the erosion at the foot of the canyon? The amount of erosion is identical in both models. And the post above answers this question. It took all of about 15 seconds to google.
The most glaring falsification for your model to me is the Hawaiian Islands and Emperor seamount chain that reveals plate tectonic activity occurring over vast amounts of time rather than quickly and gradually slowing as you believe it happened.
Even if you don't accept radiometric dating you have to acknowledge the existence of the isotopes in the rocks and you are left without any mechanism for the sorting that gets "misinterpreted" by the scientists. The amount of evidence that contradicts your model is staggering and I really don't know why I bothered to respond to this post. Maybe it was a subconscious fear that if I didn't you would use it to belittle my post that you had to answer all the objections to the flood model to be credible.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : Pasted the wrong link for Faith to browse.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, spelling
refusal even to think about some of our arguments.
Having started out as a YEC myself I don't find this comment very compelling. I would however find the reverse to be true. Creationists exhibit a refusal even to think about some of the implications of evidence.
I noticed in this video that the consensus contradicts your assertion that the process of erosion can't flatten an irregular surface. @7:30-8:11
quote:I was quite ignorant about science, as were my fellow pastors and church members. We had little scientific curiosity because the Bible told us everything we needed to know. This should serve as a reminder that Fundamentalism kills the intellect and robs people of their ability to critically engage the world around them. While I certainly had a sense of awe and wonder as I looked to the sky and observed the natural world, I never ventured beyond the acknowledgement that these things were a testimony to the power and glory of the Christian God.
quote: I still remember one sermon where I ridiculed people who said the hole in the ozone layer was getting bigger. I told the church, who cares if it gets bigger. This just makes for a bigger hole for Jesus to come through when he comes again! People laughed and said, Amen.
I fear this post is too long and will not be read. But it is as long as it is in response to your post. If you'd prefer shorter posts, fine. What I don't want is to be ignored because of the length. Please choose what it most interesting to you and let's focus on that if you like.
Thanks for posting that, very enjoyable to watch.
You're welcome. Glad you liked it. I watched/posted that video as it helps in visualizing what people are talking about. What I was looking for was a video illustrating the formation of the geologic column. Haven't found one yet but I keep finding other gems that are worth watching that cover other areas of geology and evolution.
No need to state the obvious. But I always wonder just how much of a YEC a former YEC ever was. As much of a YEC as I was once an atheist for instance? Just wondering. I called myself an atheist from around age 15 to around age 45, and was sometimes a pretty aggressive one. It was after I became a believer in Christ in my forties that I became a creationist from reading some creationist books. I wasn't a YEC from my childhood experience of church as so many seem to have been who found it so easy to give it up at the whisper of the magic word "science." Of course maybe you were more seriously a YEC than that. I'm merely wondering.
I went for a double degree from uc berkeley half of which was nuclear simply in order to debunk old earth ideas. How's that for a convinced YEC? I was sure I could see the mistakes that others missed by looking at the data from a new perspective. I went through every possible idea imaginable but each had some problem/contradiction with some other fact. I did my own personal "rate study." Which is fine. That's how we learn.
Oh I think we grasp the Old Earth and evolutionist implications of the evidence quite well, but we have the job of thinking about it from a different point of view and thinking about it against the tide as it were, rethinking it without the uniformitarian assumptions, without the billions of years, and usually in terms of what the Flood would have done to the Earth, which it seems to this YEC at least the establishment Geologists must have gone out of their way to overlook, since to my eye it's everywhere to be seen.
So at the bottom of the *flood produced* geologic column is the original pristine surface of the earth as it was prior to the flood event? The one that was very much more verdant and tropical than the modern biosphere?
My own guess would be, since of course you'd want to know, that all the alluvial fans in the entire world and all the eroded material at the base of all the formations in the entire world, certainly all the Grand Canyon walls and all the formations in the Grand Canyon area, would easily have been accomplished in a few thousand years.
Take the width of the canyon, 18 miles times 5,280ft, divide by 4,000 years and we have 23.76ft per year. Do we see that rate of erosion anywhere?
For reference read up on the Bryce Canyon hoodoos at the National Parks website. They're worried that it won't be long before the hoodoos have disappeared completely due to the rapid erosion that formed them and now threatens their existence: 2-4 feet eroded away in a hundred years they estimate. That rate would be 20 to 40 feet in a thousand years, 80 to 160 feet in four thousand years, then add a few hundred years which takes us back to the Flood and certainly to the time of the laying down of the strata from which the hoodoos were carved. That adds up to far more than the actual erosion we see today; it ought to be enough to wipe out the hoodoos or at least reduce them to little nubbins. And yet on that website they claim that formation, the Claron Formation, was laid down some 40 million years ago. There seems to be a small discrepancy in the numbers here.
Well, that's a decent stab at rationalizing the erosion, the freezing and thawing scenario I mean, but is there evidence of all that erosion somewhere? They say it was carried to the ocean. Funny how they have a problem with where the Flood would have deposited the erosion out of the GC without bothering about where their own scenarios put it all, first the erosion of a whole six mile high mountain chain and then the canyon itself.
From this I see that you didn't read my previous post in answer to this very question. Percy has repeated the answer for you. The problem remains for floodists as there is no deposition from a catastrophic flood scenario.
I still don't think erosion would ever make a mountain chain into a flat plain, but they do so that takes care of that doesn't it?
quote:Slowly, the forces of nature are wearing the mountains down from the summits, and filling in the lakes from their stream entrances outwards. This implies a natural preference for flat terrain. If everything stayed consistent for all time, the world would be a rather flat and uninteresting place. However, thanks to constantly changing climates and large scale geological movements, like mountain building, we are treated to unending diversity. As nature slowly sculpts the landscape and works to flatten it, occasionally rapid (geologically), large scale disruptions, like the uplifting of mountains, force it to begin anew.
See I think the pressure of the strata above the Great Unconformity, which were laid down to a depth of over two miles, maybe even closer to three, resisting the tectonic and volcanic forces that tilted the Supergroup, was most likely sufficient to form the garnets. That's a scenario that would have occurred in the Flood.
Well with a hypothetical flood you can generate whatever pressure you like, just by making the flood deeper. Is there any evidence of this uniform pressure acting over vast distances? If not then that is another evidence against a global flood.
Many single bits of evidence can be explained in various ways but it all has to tie together into one single model. The flood model doesn't hold water when all the evidence is considered together. It is the reason you keep shelving points you are incapable of responding to. You imagine when you learn and understand more that you will later be able to explain what you cannot at present explain. Spoiler alert: If you continue to learn you will reach the same conclusions as everyone else.
I had NO knowledge of creationism, even from my experience of church as a child, until a few years after I became a Christian in my mid forties and read books on it.
Do you remember which books you read? I read some of those too looking for support. In fact some of the arguments seemed to pull a lot of weight at first. A bird's wing for example is an airfoil and an airfoil is not an airfoil until it is an airfoil. Sounds reasonable enough. Of course initially no birds with perfect airfoil wings existed so the proto-wings had only to compete against no wings at all.
If the books were your exposure to creationism and you became a Christian prior to reading the books then were you something other than a young earth creationist at first? How then did you adopt your present attitude that only the YEC viewpoint is biblical and valid?
Do I know exactly how the Flood did the layering, of course not, but I do know that water DOES layer sediments and that the Old Earth scenario that attaches a time period of millions of years to a particular sediment is idiotic.
Slowly, the forces of nature are wearing the mountains down from the summits, and filling in the lakes from their stream entrances outwards. This implies a natural preference for flat terrain. If everything stayed consistent for all time, the world would be a rather flat and uninteresting place. However, thanks to constantly changing climates and large scale geological movements, like mountain building, we are treated to unending diversity. As nature slowly sculpts the landscape and works to flatten it, occasionally rapid (geologically), large scale disruptions, like the uplifting of mountains, force it to begin anew.
What a ROMANTIC piece of nonsense, even "religious" in tone I must say. Personally I think it's remarkable that the planet is as accommodating to human interests as it is, as beautiful as it is, in spite of its basically wrecked condition. Anyway, I think the idea that mountains would erode to flatness is absurd. "A natural preference for flat terrain" is very much romantic nonsense. See, this is what comes of a science that operates entirely on imagination because there is no way to test or check it. In my experience erosion forms gashes and gullies, not flat terrain, water cuts into land etc, and what happened to all that tectonic activity on this "very active" planet, which the video itself started out invoking? Just sort of suspended operations while the mountains collapsed, eh? Over what is it, 500 million years or something like that?
Remember your repeated charge that you thought EvC members were forgetting gravity? What else can erosion accomplish besides leveling the planet? "Water cuts into land." Yes and where does that soil that is cut away go? To a lower spot. And what happens to that lower spot? It rises up. Then overall what has occurred? The planet is more level than before.
So at the bottom of the *flood produced* geologic column is the original pristine surface of the earth as it was prior to the flood event? The one that was very much more verdant and tropical than the modern biosphere?
Oh no, that's not the idea at all. There's no "bottom" involved, ALL of the geologic column from bottom to top is the evidence of that pre-Flood world, the deposition of all those different sediments in neat horizontal layers, which I think defies any sort of long term explanation but is very compatible with what is known about the behavior of water, then all those fossils of so many forms of life, familiar and unfamiliar, fossils requiring special circumstances to form too but such an abundance of them; and all the fossilized vegetation, some of which has become coal. I think the generally wrecked look of the entire planet is also evidence of the Flood, which is maybe more evident in the desert areas, greenery doing such a nice job of masking it, but I personally think the Earth LOOKS like a wreck, like a great catastrophe must have overwhelmed it. That's what I mean by the evidence being all around us, everywhere we look, but I do think the strata are particularly special evidence of it.
Ok, so the earth is torn up and redeposited. But that would have leveled the surface and left the entire planet under water. So now you invoke tectonic activity to raise it back up? Plates crashing into plates as pictured by modern geologists but much faster? Surely you realize that the flood would deposit this load onto the ocean floor as well as onto whatever is left of the continents? And as a side question how does Noah survive such a turbulent event that is so chaotic and energetic that the entire geologic column is floating around in the flood water? The bible seems to describe water levels rising and falling without much mention of the Vitamix blender action you need to move that much soil around.
Well with a hypothetical flood you can generate whatever pressure you like, just by making the flood deeper.
Now, THAT is really a misrepresentation of my argument.
It wasn't a representation of your argument at all. It was merely an observation of one way a floodist might claim whatever pressure they like. That is all fine as long as the evidence supports the model, whatever it is.
Here's a link that will present some more puzzles for you to work on as you put together a model for a global flood that created the geologic column. Good luck.
I should have mentioned that after the end credits another video will start. There are seven in all. You can also skip the end credits by clicking on the right for the next segment. They discuss other falsifications of the YEC model. Desert varnish on rocks. Tree rings again. Coprolites. Consilience between radiometric dating of sea floor spreading with molecular clocks of frog species. Two segments on dust from meteor impacts and implications for the YEC model.
All problems for the YEC model. Maybe Faith will explain how these issues will "fall in line."
™ Version 4.2
(1)
