Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Good question. It has been eroded away, but not during canyon formation. It was actualy eroded at an earlier time when the course of the Colorado River was at a lower elevation, meandering across a low coastal plain.I'm not sure if the iridium layer has been documented in this area. I will do some research; but because erosion occurs not only in the present, if the layer was deposited on land it could have been immediately eroded just as the MSH ash is gone from most continental areas today. In other words, it's as if it never were deposited.

This refers back to the question of unconformities, which some YECs strenuously deny. And yet, there is the evidence...Of course, it can all be explained by the flood! It all fits together if you follow the evidence far enough.

Or it should be spread out through the entire package of rocks and, hence, so diluted as to preclude the creation of an anomaly, which manifestly exists.Oh well, don't worry. The flood explains it all,,,

Exactly. These are geochemical iridium values, not visible to the naked eye, and yet are highly anomalous. The visuals on this layer are not due to iridium alone, but other chemical and textural factors as well.To have such a precisely defined iridium layer would be impossible in a global flood environment that is is depositing thousands of meters of sediment in a year. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Well, these are not the visuals that Faith was discussing, but yes, they are pretty definitive features. The mother of all ash clouds. I would think that the clays are from the hydrous alteration of glass and from contamination by normal sedimentation. Some of it probably was primary, derived from ground zero.Just guess, but on land, it would just be a fine ash unless it was hot enough to become welded. I haven't heard of that. In the water, it would look like a silt deposit.

Correct. Not compatible with the sedimentation rates one would need for a one year global flood. The iridium layer is just an example.Whenever there are high rates of deposition you cannot simply inject an anomalous material and expect it to not be contaminated. The higher the rate of sedimentation the more that the impact ejecta would be swamped by ambient sediment. And you have no such timing. It would be like pouring a cup of coffee into Niagara Falls. I'm not seeing this at all. What are you trying to say? Yes, it would basically look like silt, mixed in with whatever the ambient material is. Mixing is the key. The greater the sediment influx, the more diffuse your ejecta; the slower the influx, the more defined the ejecta layer would be.And no, silt does not 'float', it stays suspended in flowing water. Please read your own links more carefully. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Well, you've failed so far. I didn't think you would. If you understood, you would see how completely wrong your analysis is. This is pretty common sense and the analogy is accurate. First of all, you didn't say 'in running water' in your first post. Second, silt is not relatively buoyant in water and silt particles do not 'float' on the surface of water.And really... a book from 1883? I knew that YECs are behind the times, but this is ridiculous. Care to join us in this century?

Not really. You really don't know anything about your flood nor explained any mechanisms for how all of the features you attribute to the flood formed. All you can say is something like 'the fludde did it, and if you disagree with me, you are probably insane.'No, Faith, all we are doing is trying to show you what the consequences of your flood would be with respect to the geological record.

So, there were no rocks before the flood?What are you saying?

So, then why do they not all look the same age? How come we see so much erosion of mountain ranges in the last few thousand years when it's hardly noticeable in the human time frame? And you have failed on all accounts. Is this an argument or a complaint?

You have not made any arguments. Only assertions that 'the fludde did it'.Give us something to work with... If you can't present a cogent argument with some kind of support, your argument is worthless.

So, you admit that there were some rocks prior to the flood. Okay, now we're getting someplace. Okay, where did those rocks come from? Can we see their source after the rest of the earth slid into the ocean?

So, the Appalachians and the Alps, arguably the same type of mountains, being caused by continent-continent collision with folded sedimentary sequences, should look the same?

Well, I would hope so, since you have not presented any here. Ah, so you have no choice.

Then I'm wondering why you said this: