Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 75 of 1896 (713459)
12-13-2013 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
12-13-2013 7:48 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
When the pores are small enough to allow cementation, the water flows through them very very very slowly, even under tremendous pressure. It's called friction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 7:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 228 of 1896 (713753)
12-16-2013 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Tanypteryx
12-16-2013 12:38 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
IOW we would be far from finding the coal we have found without mainstream geology.
How would Faith find coal? Prayer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-16-2013 12:38 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-16-2013 1:25 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 230 of 1896 (713755)
12-16-2013 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:20 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
But if the Grand Canyon was clearly not laid down layer by layer over millions of years that wrecks Old Earth theory and whatever science gets right is something else.
We still have only your assertions that the GC was not laid down layer by layer over millions of years, and none of your "explanations" are in accord with the observed facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:37 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 250 of 1896 (713782)
12-16-2013 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
12-16-2013 1:37 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
You obviously haven't bothered to read or think about anything I've written, or you can't understand it due to theory-blindness which I think is a lot of th eproblem here, because there is PLENTY of evidence there from observed facts that the Old Earth doesn't work.
There's plenty of Faith's (and others) unsupported assertions that Old Earth doesn't work. Evidence for those claims, however, is lacking or invalidated many times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 251 of 1896 (713783)
12-16-2013 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
12-16-2013 1:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
"what kind of environment causes coal" doesn't require any idea about millions of years.
It does if you want a correct answer. As does "Where are we likely to find coal?"
I've SHOWN that the layers wree not laid down over millions of yeaers. You just have to THINK about the evidence given.
I have thought about the very little evidence you have proffered and it doesn't support your claims, all of which were refuted decades ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 317 of 1896 (713932)
12-18-2013 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by PaulK
12-18-2013 2:10 AM


Re: The Supergroup and the Uplift Continued
Paul, you've got things seriously out of order here. The meanders occur at the very end of the carving of the canyon, whether on OE theory or YEC theory.
Nope, the OE view is that the meanders were formed before the uplift and were cut as incised meanders. They are quite common, here's an image search.
{ABE}The graded river and base level.
Incised meanders with near vertical sides can only be cut in hard rock (soft sediments would slump to lower angles as at the Toutle river at Mt. St. Helens), and by water that isn't moving too fast (otherwise the upstream inner edge and downstream outer edge would be severely undercut by the forces involved in changing the direction of the water suddenly).
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by PaulK, posted 12-18-2013 2:10 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 12-18-2013 2:23 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 338 of 1896 (713978)
12-18-2013 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Faith
12-18-2013 2:23 PM


Re: The Supergroup and the Uplift Continued
There coujldn't have been meanders in a river a mile deep in a canyon before there was a canyon, and Percy already agreed that the canyon was cut into the uplift. But of course you're free to disagree with him.
I don't disagree with Percy. You are misunderstanding again.
The meanders existed, as meanders do in many rivers, before the uplift started. But they weren't a mile deep. They were whatever the depth of the water in the river was, plus the height of whatever banks the river had. They were just meanders, not incised meanders.
As the uplift started, the meanders got cut a little deeper by erosion. Then there was a little more uplift and erosion cut the meanders deeper. After millions of years of very slow uplift and erosion cutting through hard rock (we can tell that they weren't cut through soft rock) the meanders were a mile deep and are no incised meanders.
The canyon was cut in the uplift. SO were the incised meanders. But an ordinary river with no canyon but many ordinary meanders existed before the uplift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 12-18-2013 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 344 of 1896 (713986)
12-18-2013 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Faith
12-18-2013 2:02 PM


Re: The Supergroup and the Uplift Continued
Funny how uplifts seem to like to push themselves up right beneath a stream of water like that, that has already formed banks that prevent it from spilling down the slope of the mounded uplift, but hey, it's not impossible of course, just not very likely as a general rule.
Nope, it's fairly common. Lots of rivers in the world, lots of uplift. Imaqes of incised meanders.
The GC may be the best known and most impressive example, but it's far from alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Faith, posted 12-18-2013 2:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 12-18-2013 10:43 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 372 of 1896 (714060)
12-19-2013 2:36 PM


Here's a nice video on meanders and uplift, showing non_GC incised meanders. Won't affect Faith, of course.

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 12-19-2013 2:48 PM JonF has replied
 Message 387 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2013 3:40 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 376 of 1896 (714065)
12-19-2013 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
12-19-2013 2:48 PM


So somehow the Colorado River was already at the level of the Tapeats or lower or whatever it is, and the strata just grew up all around it to its current depth of a mile to the Kaibab rim, or what?
Nope, "just grew" implies that layers were created around the existing river, and that's just not possible. Before the uplift the river and it's meanders were there on top of all the layers that we see today in the Grand Canyon. All those layers were very slowly lifted up. As they were slowly lifted, the river cut into them as fast or slightly faster than the uplift, remaining at roughly the same level as the land was pushed up around it.
If "the strata just grew up all around it to its current depth of a mile" that would require the river to be underwater during some of the deposition, and it would tot lead to near-vertical walls because soft unlithified sediment would slump to a much lower wall angle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 12-19-2013 2:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Faith, posted 12-19-2013 3:13 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 381 of 1896 (714072)
12-19-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
12-19-2013 3:03 PM


Re: The Supergroup and the Uplift Continued
You keep thinking of uplift as a hump that blocks the river. Not so. The height of the river at any time is the original height plus the total uplift minus the total erosion. If (as is often the case) the erosion is greater than or equal to the uplift, the river level will be the original level or lower. Never higher.
Made up example: Original elevation above sea level of the river 2,200 feet. (This is about what the Colorado river is today in the GC). Uplift rate 1 inch per year (faster than realistic but it's just an example) = 0.83333333333 feet per year. Erosion rate 1.00001 inch per year (made up to illustrate the point) = 0.08334166666667 feet per year. Original bank height of the river 2 feet.
After 1,000,000 years river elevation = 2,200 + 1000000*(1-1.00001) = 2,199.166666667 feet. Bank height = 2 + 1*1000000 = 1000002 feet. IOW the river just sat there at essentially the same elevation over all that time while it cut a million-foot-deep canyon.
The real average erosion and uplift rates are much smaller.
Of course the uplift rate varies over time, as does the erosion rate, and the height of the banks can play a role if the uplift is fast enough, so a real calculation would be much more complicated. But that illustrates the principle.
Uplift plus erosion that keeps up with the uplift = deep canyon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 12-19-2013 3:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 382 of 1896 (714074)
12-19-2013 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Faith
12-19-2013 3:13 PM


To me that is all Hallucinogenia talk.
Yeah, that reality stuff really bothers you.
Amounting to what I already said: that the walls of the canyon "grew up" around the river.
Define "grew up". It certainly seems to me that you were claiming that the layers we see today were not in existence at the time that the GC started forming. That's false, as I pointed out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Faith, posted 12-19-2013 3:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 12-19-2013 3:44 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 383 of 1896 (714075)
12-19-2013 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Faith
12-19-2013 3:13 PM


.
Edited by JonF, : Duplicate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Faith, posted 12-19-2013 3:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 421 of 1896 (714145)
12-20-2013 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by RAZD
12-20-2013 7:44 AM


Re: Grand Canyon Topo Map
ITYM "hold down Ctrl..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2013 7:44 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 426 of 1896 (714154)
12-20-2013 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Faith
12-20-2013 12:17 AM


Re: The YEC scenario again
Stiill damp sedimentary layers would carve a LOT easier than basalt, accounting for the huge width and depth of the GC.
AS has been pointed out so many times before, the GC could not have been carved in damp sedimentary layers. Such layers cannot support near-vertical wall; they slump instead. As we see at the catastrophic Toutle River flood at Mt. St. Helens. The first three pictures are from ICR:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Faith, posted 12-20-2013 12:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Faith, posted 12-20-2013 10:52 AM JonF has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024