Summations Only

Hi Faith ...Take an ordinary mason jar, put 8 cm of soil in it, fill with water to about 3 cm from the rim, add a couple drops of detergent, put the lid on and shake until all the soil is suspended. Let sit for 1 hour (overnight for the organic matter to settle). What do you observe? Yes, the coarsest particles (coarse sand) settles out quickly, then fine sand, then silt and finally clay (the finest particles). Does this distribution resemble the Grand Canyon layers - coarse particles on bottom getting progressively finer towards the top? If not, then the Grand Canyon layers were not laid down in one single flood event. It's that simple - elementary school science project.Have you heard of Schrodinger's cat? Although his thought experiment was done for a bit of a different purpose, I think the basic idea applies here. So essentially how it works is this: If you put a live cat in a sealed box and close it up there is no way to know if the cat is at any moment dead or alive. Only when you open the box and observe the cat can you know for sure what the status of the cat is. So while the box is sealed there is an uncertainty as to what the cat's condition is - we just can't know for sure.However, when we open the box and the cat is alive we can assume the cat was alive while the box was sealed. When we repeat this over and over and every time we observe the cat alive, the case becomes stronger and stronger that the cat is alive while the box is sealed. This is what everyone here keeps telling you ... that every time we open the box the cat is alive. But your argument is still that we can't know for sure because we cannot directly observe it while it is sealed in the box. You suggest that maybe during that time it turned into a mouse or teleported to another dimension, etc...I think this is a pretty good analogy as to how you are arguing this issue. Think about it. No we can never be absolutely certain about what happened in the past, but every time we look it is OLD, OLD, OLD.ABE: Razd made a good point while I was preparing this post. In the sediment experiment I mentioned, do you see a knife edge between the layers? No, they are blurred and blend slightly one into the other. They are distinct layers, but not separated by a distinct edge.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : additional thought

Schrodinger's cat, Faith, Schrodinger's cat! You think that just because we weren't there to see any of this happen that you are free to make up anything and it will be sufficient to explain the phenomenon. Well it's not! It has to be something that could actually work.HBD

Oooo I got this ... remember the mountains were much lower before the flood so after the flood the mountains and the surrounding land masses lifted at about 2 feet per year. Also continental drift caused great rifts in the ocean floors where the water could run into and return to its subterranean lair. All the while none of the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Sumerians, or Greeks noticed this violent terrestrial restructuring.Or there is a big drain in the bottom of the Pacific that was pulled so the water could all drain back to the subterranean caverns.Oh wait ... remember the story of Odysseus? They came to that whirlpool, Charybdis I think, and all were lost but Odysseus. That could be the drain that was letting the water back underground.Either way. Whats the difference?HBD

Exactly what I am trying to get you to see Faith, you need to understand how these things actually work. That's what people are trying to explain to you. If you want to make a case for a young earth and a global flood, you need mechanisms that actually WORK! If you talk about mechanisms that work and then you can fit those ideas into a young earth, then great. But your ideas simply don't work. You're not convincing anyone. I find it hard to believe you are really even convincing yourself. Your ideas just don't match what we observe in reality.HBD

I guess I am not clear on this image, Percy. If layers separated by over 100 million years are inter-bedded, wouldn't that be problematic. A quick Google search shows this source to be the only place where this is particular "problem" is discussed, so seems suspect. Explanation?HBD

According to the image the rocks are layered:Mississippian / Cambrian / Mississippian / Cambrian / Mississippian / Cambrian / Mississippian / CambrianInterbedding between rocks of that different of ages would be problematic, would it not?I assume this is erroneous information from this site, but not sure. Do they simply alternate between Redwall-type limestone and Muav-type limestone without corresponding fossils (Ie. Mississippian or Cambrian fossils)?HBD

Could you explain what is actually going on in those layers? I was confused by the image as well - if that is indeed Cambrian rock on top of Mississippian rock it disproves the whole geological column and the old earth HBD

Is this the kind of erosional layers you are expecting to see everywhere even from a distance? HBD

No, it obviously did not happen that way. I am not sure everyone understands what you are trying to say about this, so I saw this pic and realized "that's what she is saying should have happened" so this is for clarification.So you are saying that the Grand Canyon should look like this if it took millions of years to form?HBD

Geology is not my forte' but here is the image that Percy posted: Doesn't look like faulting or sliding to me.HBD

But it's not bollocks because it says "Bible" on it. I just wanted an explanation as to why these layers look like they are interbedded.HBD

I believe you have created a false dichotomy for yourself. For you, it boils down to either the Bible is wrong or the evidence is wrong. But perhaps there is a third option... remember that the Bible (specifically Genesis in context of this discussion) was not written to twenty-first century, scientifically knowledgeable people, but to bronze age nomads who had just left Egypt and who God intended to make into a great nation, the nation he promised Abraham. Yes, the Bible was written for us but not to us. You must understand the Bible in the context of its original audience. I won't go into it any further here, but suffice it to say that the third option might be that you simply misunderstand what the original intention of the passages were. If that position is correct then both the physical evidence and the Word of God can be true. It doesn't have to either / or. No dichotomy needed.Back to the topic at hand, I found these charts in An Introduction to Geology. Its kinda old (1921 ?) so I'm sure more evidence has been added since then but he has some good illustrations spanning the time period we are talking about (particularly the unconformity between the Muav limestone and the Redwall limestone. (hatched areas = known deposits, black areas = exposed areas)Now for the purposes of this exercise, there is no need to assign dates to any of the layers, simply to recognize that they were laid down sequentially and to note the pattern of distribution. The order is:Cambrian (there is not a distribution map available in this book), Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian.Ordovician: Notice there is a large circular area near the beginning of the canyon that has no Ordovician deposits but all around it there are? What can you conclude from that? Consider that we are talking about that area being uplifted at some point in the past. Does that area look like it might be higher than the surrounding areas (that were seas)? Could that be why there were no Ordovician deposits - because the land was above sea level?Silurian: Notice the large area north and south of the GC that have no Silurian rocks?Devonian: Notice that there are Devonian deposits in the upper GC area but they aren't extensive. Further down into the canyon, they are more widely distributed. Does the distribution of rock in this layer look similar to the Silurian period but with more area under water? Could this be due to a rise in sea level?Mississippian (Carboniferous): Notice how extensive Carboniferous deposits are in North America. Most of the US and Mexico were underwater.Muav limestone is Cambrian. Ordovician and Silurian rocks are missing from the formation. Devonian is represented by Tempe Butte formation. And Mississippian is represented by Redwall limestone.Consider that the layers were laid down while they were under water (they are sedimentary rock after all). What do these distribution charts tell us about what the land was like during the times when the layers were being laid down?Bottom line is this ... How can a global flood explain these patterns of distribution? And how could that explanation do a better job of explaining this pattern than deposits made sequentially over an extended period of time (doesn't even need to be millions of years)?Another point. I live in Michigan and we are experiencing glacial rebound that has been measured to be up to 15 inches per century in the northern Great Lakes region! that is more than 1/8" a year! I've never even noticed it. No bedrock cracking, no problem with our rivers flowing. Uplift is not as big a problem as you think. Yea, if it lifts 10 feet in a year - that would be a problem. But not a couple inches a century. Our world is pretty flexible.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

I think we are interpreting these maps in the same way. Actually, saying those hatched regions were underwater is the interpretation. The data is that those places have deposits from that geological period or that deposits can be inferred to have been present. From the Distribution Of Ordovician Rocks. American (a paragraph above the image):

quote:

---

Such a map, which can only be a rude approximation to the truth, is constructed by marking as water all those areas where Ordovician rocks are known, or confidently inferred to be present, even though concealed by overlying, newer strata, and as land those areas where the Ordovician is wanting.

---

One of the things Faith (and all YECs) says is that we can't know what happened in the past. Rather than just saying those areas were underwater or land, I just wanted her to look at the data and draw some conclusions, like the scientists do - they don't just make stuff up on a whim, there are good reasons for there conclusions. And the actual data is that there are deposits present or not present (or strong inferences as to such) in those areas.HBD

I understand you have a lot of other posts to respond to, but there really isn't a lot to deal with in my post, just a couple major points.According to "flood geology", the region was supposedly completely underwater while all the deposits in question were laid down. And yet we have these strange distribution patterns that are not consistent at all with being completely underwater. The conclusion that scientists come to when looking at maps such as these is that these deposits were laid down sequentially with varying sea levels and land uplifts. The conclusion that the area was underwater during all those depositions is just not forthcoming from the data.The other point I made was that the crust is quite flexible and can suffer deformation without breaking or catastrophic effects. We are experiencing it right here in Michigan and we have 6,000 - 12,000 feet of rock beneath us!!! Sorry, I probably shouldn't have brought this up in this thread since it is a whole different topic. But, I would like to continue this discussion and will try to start a new thread in a couple of days. You replied to Tangle that you were not interested in discussing the topic further. Would a great debate be better option to limit participants? I would like to continue the discussion because I don't consider myself to be a "compromiser" at all and would like to present my case as to why I think the way I do.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : clarification

It should be an "ah-ha" moment for you!Strata laid down first (sequentially) --> strata lithified --> formations carvedHow is that done in a single flood event????Ah-ha!!! the Earth IS OLD. Now I get it!HBD