Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined

Well, you know what they say about " ... even a blind squirrel...".My viewpoint that it is possible, but the reason for using geology is to improve your chances of finding oil. And that has worked in the modern era, particularly with some of the new techniques and basin analysis.My only direct use of radiometric dating and oil exploration was as part of the study of the thermal history of a basin. Without a radiometric date, a given intrusive could not be fit into the story.Another direct use of evolutionary theory and old ages would be in palynology where we depend on evolutionary changes to provide data about target zones in drilling. The YEC geological interpretation would make this impossible.It would be hard to imagine oil exploration these days without some kind of understanding of sedimentary sequences. As we have seen on the last few threads, such things certainly don't fit into Faith's version of geology.Glad you're back, by the way...

Meanders form in low-gradient (slope) topography, near base level. They are considered to represent a mature stage of stream development because erosion has operated to a point where there is limited vertical relief (i.e., no mountains). Typically, they form in broad plains or piedmonts near sea level. examples occur all over the world, but most of us are familiar with the Mississippi River meanders in the mid-continent area of the United States. They usually do not form deep canyons because they cannot erode below base level.Now in case anyone hasn't noticed, the Colorado River, in the Grand Canyon is not near sea level. This suggests that the region has been uplifted since the formation of meanders.What does uplift do? It causes high relief and a lowering of base level. This allows the stream to down cut in a geologically rapid way. A modern example would be the progress of the Niagara Falls as it works its way upstream forming a gorge.So, the morphology of the canyon shows two stages:1. Mature stream with meandering course.2. Youthful stream with high gradients and active erosion.The meandering pattern was established long before and guided the down cutting of what we see now as the Grand Canyon. And that is why they are called 'incised' meanders.The width of the canyon has little to do with stream erosion per se. It is caused by the fact that the rocks cannot support vertical walls and will recede farther and farther outward as the canyon gets deeper. Think of trying to cut a narrow trench in sand or soil. Without retaining walls, you cannot do it.So, Faith wants this to be one catastrophic drainage event. It turns out that we have an example in the Lake Missoula floods which are a 'break-out' event that resulted in the channeled scablands in Washington state.Unfortunately for Faith, the scablands look nothing like what we see in, or around, or above the Grand Canyon. For one, there are no meanders. That type of flow regime simply does not produce meanders. Braided streams, perhaps, but no meanders.The other item I'd like to address is the 'soft-but-not-too-soft' state of the Grand Canyon rocks during erosion. Basically, we know that the rocks had to have a fairly high competence to maintain a mile deep canyon. This would not be possible if the rocks were not completely lithified prior to erosion of the canyon. Furthermore, we can see some straight side canyons that had to be controlled by fractures and faults which could not be maintained in a soft sediment that some YECs say made up the stratigraphy.If Faith's scenario were correct we've wasted a lot of time an money shoring up trenches for workers at construction sites over the years. However, I'm pretty sure that they appreciated the safety factor.There are a lot more interesting factors to consider in the formation of streams and canyons. One thing to remember that they are all evolving and all geologically temporary.

In fact, I think that most people don't understand that. When people say that a stream is 'underfit' for its valley, my professor used to say that 'all streams are underfit.' The walls have to fall in and that changes the rate of erosion in the stream. It creates another dam or restriction which is eventually burst and then the stream resumes its 'normal' flow. Most erosion is probably episodic. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

All kinds of complications. For instance, along Clear Creek out of Denver there are hanging gravels on the canyon walls from when the stream was up there. I understand that some in the area have placer gold.But your point is that streams are complex and often very old. It's kind of hard to discuss in a message board forum.

With regard to fossil sorting, you said: So, if this is the case, could you please give us the mammal location on earth at the time of the trilobites?

No one is saying that the changes are not rapid, only that they took place a long time ago.

Nonsense.What happens after the sediments are deposited is important because that is when we see them in the rock record ... long after deposition.I have no problem with 'flatness', except that it results in the question:'What is 'flat'?And at what scale?In virtually all cases, true 'flatness' is impossible, at least in the regional sense. We know this because formations are not everywhere equal in thickness; that is, their upper and lower contacts must diverge.

Why would they change? So, tell us how fast that is. How long does it take to make a phenotypic change in a species and how is that preserved in the fossil record?

Of course.That would be evidence supporting your position. Well, then show us where mammals and trilobites are found together.In either case, there should be a Cambrian mammal location somewhere in the world if you are correct.

I don't think there is anything remarkable about sediments being 'flat'. In most cases, they were deposited in a gravitational field and being soft, could not support any other shape.If there are no disturbing factors, sure, the sediments have flat contacts and beds.What that has to do with anything else, who knows?

So, you admit that it's simply personal incredulity for you?

In that case, you are ruling out an entire field of primary sedimentary structures. Sure, if you have a continuous depositional environment, you will get a continuous layer of sediment related to that environment. If there is a shallow sea from Kansas to Illinois, you will get a continuous layer of siltstone or limestone. However, its thickness will vary and it may have some sedimentary structures that break up the 'flatness'. Why not? Why do we see trilobite tracks in some of these places or shells or burrows? What is 'unlivable' about it?Why do we see inoceramid clams living in the Niobrara Formation in Kansas if the environment were unlivable? Then why do we find lake sediments with fish and insects and bird fossils in them? Yes, long enough gaps for termite mounds and dinosaur nests to miraculously appear; and for supposedly dead tetrapods to leave their footprints in sandstone.Sorry, but your flood does not hold water. Hey, you're the one making the assertion. If you want to define it, that might help. At that scale, it appears to be flat. All formations will appear to be flat at some point. Well, then why are the creatures leaving footprints in an unlivable habitat? Why do they build nests? Why do they dig burrows? How do they reproduce? A mudflat is a landscape. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Here is a schematic cross-section from Utah to Iowa showing some of the strata that Faith describes. If we look at the Kansas part of the section we see the Niobrara Limestone at fairly shallow depths and even cropping out in some places. Theoretically, this formation is unlivable according to Faith. And yet we see such fossils as inoceramid clam fossils in the Niobrara.These creatures grew to be quite large as shown by this page in Wikipedia (Inoceramus - Wikipedia).My question is how did these creatures get to their current location in an unlivable environment? They apparently had no problem growing to great size and eventually forming fossils several feet across.So, if the environment was unlivable, how did they grow so large? How did they get there in the first place? I mean, it's not like they went out on a tidal flat in search of food and got caught in a rising tide.I also remember a YEC canard that creatures were running like crazy from the rising flood waters ... So, why did they come back between tides?More YEC mysteries here. Please explain.

Actually, I don't see anyone stopping you. If you are loath to say something it suggests that you have a problem with your belief system. In general, I'd say that most YECs don't really think about it. That's part of the problem. Well, the point is that if someone makes a comment, they should be prepared to defend it. Even professional YECs have run away from these forums. As I have noted above, you can say anything you want. The problem is that we expect one to present an argument. If you can't do that, you will be forever frustrated here.

Here is an instructive image of a transitional contact between two formations in northern Iraq. As you can see, there are two distinctive formations representing a change from a lower limestone to an upper marl (a limey mudstone). In between is a 'transitional zone' where limestone slowly gives way to more mudstone.This is not a 'sharp contact' as the ones that Faith frequently refers to. It represents a very slow transition during which the sedimentary environment moves back and forth between the two until the mudstone finally prevails.The problem is, how do we represent this transitional contact on a cross-section or map? Usually, what is done is some kind of description such as the recognized contact being the 'last limestone at the top of the Kometan Formation'. Possibly we might use the first appearance of a given fossil species.The point here is that, while we think of contacts as being sharp, they often are not. It all depends on how fast the environment changes (in geological terms).I'm not sure if this is on topic here, since we have some topic creep, but for whatever it's worth ...