Summations Only

The Colorado River drains a large area, some seven states if I recall correctly, so it could be the remains of the water from the Flood that washed through all that area including Monument Valley, but I don't know.I also don't know what volume of water it would take flowing at what speed to carve the Grand Canyon but I have in mind one humongous Flood you know, so whatever cubic feet or miles of stuff that was removed I'd just assume a sufficient volume of water to remove it. If the Flood laid it down, the receding Flood could remove it.ABE: In reading up on the Palouse River area in response to RAZD I found mentions of enormous amounts of volcanic deposition in that area as well as enormous amounts of material removed into the Pacific Ocean by the flooding of Lake Missoula. Cubic miles of stuff removed into the Pacific by one draining lake. /abeEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why only one scablands? Well it's all basalt for one thing, which was cut catastrophically by a draining lake, not directly by the receding worldwide Flood, which would have removed a lot of stuff from the area already; while the Grand Canyon area is all layered sediments that would have been carved out initially by the receding Flood. So the flooding of the Missoula caused one kind of river bed while water elsewhere caused a different kind, doesn't strike me as a big problem. For the Grand Canyon the Flood would have carved out the basic depth and breadth but the remaining normal river would have cut the V-shaped bottom afterward. Seems to take care of the problem Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ooops, that's right. Bryce Canyon is more appropriate to hoodoo formations. Bryce Canyon has a larger area (56 square miles), but I am not clear on what the volume of material that needed to be removed was. Just change reference to hoodoos to buttes. Monument Valley only covers .02% of the Colorado Plateau, which all needs to be eroded at generally the same kind of rates. After the flood waters abated, you would have erosion of the type that we can identify with and can understand based on other known flood sources such as the Channeled Scablands being scoured by Lake Missoula floods. Erosion would have quickly settled into the kinds of processes we can relate to.

quote:

---

And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry. And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dried.
Gen 8:13 - 14

---

The ground was dried. The flood was over. If there were standing bodies of water left over from the flood, they would now operate in ways we can relate to today. The vast majority of the erosional work needs to be done as the flood waters drained.Or was this only a local drying? Or maybe a metaphor? Sure, there definitely would be. And then erosion would begin to operate in ways that we relate to. These extreme rates of erosion that can carve features so rapidly could not have formed by these processes, they need to be done by the actual flood waters running off. Because I am trying to imagine it from a "flood geology" perspective. I am not sure there is any way to "get all this coordinated."HBD

A lot of assumptions that have no basis in naturalistic explanations.HBD

Do you know what a river is?

Where did the flood waters go? How could there be runoff if the whole planet is covered by water? Faith and the other YECs all talk about the flood causing erosion as if a plug was pulled and the flood water went down a drain.Did it get sucked into a black hole or something? Water has to have a lower level to flow into before it can flow. If the whole planet is covered with water there is no lower level to flow into.

Well since use of the forum Search function shows that Percy has never said how old any given hoodoo is, it's not just your "arithmetic" that's off.

The tide-based erosional forces wouldn't kick in until different erosional forces had opened up the English Channel. * sighs *The end point is not the start point.* shakes head *Creationists ..."This man can't be seventy. Why, he's clearly very old. So in seventy years he'd be dead!"

abe: For this discussion you need to think Flood timing rather than OE timing or at least keep it in mind. /abe I'm not talking about the future of the Dover Cliffs, which is what that remark implies, but that at the rate given by Percy they couldn't be existing NOW given OE assumptions of when they were formed, they'd long since have eroded away to nothing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote code.

Dear heart, the age of the chalk at Dover must, of complete necessity, be greater than the age of the Cliffs. If only by an hour or two....
But it's by more than an hour or two, you see.

You are still not getting it....it went right over your head.What are the OE assumptions of when they were formed? And do you mean when the material was deposited or when the erosion of the cliffs began?The age of the material and the length of time to erode to their present state is more evidence that there was never a worldwide biblical flood.

What it implies is that you're conflating the past and the future of the geological features you're talking about. Which you are. No, they will erode away to nothing in the future. There was not enough time for them to have been eroded away to nothing in the past, because the English Channel hasn't been there that long.

I don't get this. Percy gave a rate for the erosion of the Dover cliffs, I computed it to see how long it would take for it to erode down to nothing. The Cliffs themselves. So the erosion would supposedly begin at the point that they WERE cliffs. Some millions of years ago? Or you tell me when they became exposed cliffs and we'll go from there.

Fine, then if they began to be cliffs when the English Channel was formed which was not millions of years ago, though you don't say when, that's OK by me but I am not talking about the future only computing from what I thought the time of formation was which is usually millions of years in the past by OE reckoning. So that's not true for Dover, so let's just drop it and go back to formations that WERE supposedly formed millions of years ago such as the hoodoos of Bryce Canyon and the monuments of Monument Valley, and in those cases they would long since have eroded down to dust at the rates of erosion given by Percy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wikipedia gives an age of between 450,000 and 180,000 years.