Jump to content


Photo

Grand Canyon Layers


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 27 May 2017 - 05:43 PM

I snipped this over from the 'creationist denied access to the Grand Canyon' thread
 

Perhaps if he has some important points you could highlight them, so I can refute them for you, in my sleep.

The point is, "What If", you can present as many articles and blogs saying creation isn't science, as you want, but this won't change the fact that it is a scientific fact that we have seen strata, facies, and canyons cut out within weeks on this planet, and we have seen none of those things happen slowly.

Flume experiments have confirmed what Austin argues, that hydraulic sorting can indeed create facies quickly, laminated and stratified.

This is proven scientific fact.

So now show me science showing a canyon forming over millions of years, show me science showing strata with fossils forming slowly, show me different type of rock morphology happen slowly, like at Mt St Helens, where you have stratified rock cut off by a flow and create cliffs on top of it that were not stratified.

This is what evolutionists are too DUMB to realise - that while they are giving their lengthy rhteorical PHLEGM concerning creation not being science, they haven't actually got any science to show us, proving their absurd MOY story.

No direct facts at all - but we have, which is why they can only attack us personally and call us false scientists, because friend, that's the only weak hand they have to play. But one hand they haven't got to play, is any example of these features happening slowly like they claim happened, but we have scientific proof the same features happened quickly. That is our claim, juxtaposed with their story - our claim is proven, that these features can and indeed did happen quickly, so why can't they on a larger scale? But their claim remains a story.


It’s so facile to compare the Mt St. Helens canyon with the Grand Canyon. Does the Mt St helens one have different layers of shale, limestone, sandstone with attendant fossils particular to each stratum? No of course not, all the layers are volcanic in origin, with zero fossils. Who’s being dumb ?

The Cocconino sandstone layer is often put forward as the most damaging one for the creationist viewpoint and for good reason. It was formed from wind deposited sand dunes in a desert environment.

Deserts don’t form during a global flood.

We know that the Cocconino are of desert sand dune origin due to the angle of the laminations, the frosted nature of the sand grains and the presence of vertebrate and various arthropod tracks.

Of course creationists (e.g. Dr Andrew Snelling of AiG) attack these interpretations stating that the bedding angle (average 24 deg) is too low for desert deposits and fits underwater sand waves (neglecting to mention that underwater ones are generally of less than 10 deg and observed range of desert ones encompass the Cocconino angle – and of course angles of desert layers would be flattened under compression when forming sandstone rock). Dr Leonard Brand of Loma Linda university (a Seventh Day Adventist Uni) did experiments in tanks where he chucked in salamanders on sand which gave results interpreted as consistent with those formed underwater (these assumed gentle currents not raging floodwaters).

One can probably keep on arguing about counterclaims such as these endlessly without agreement.

However, the Cocconino sandstone is one of the uppermost layers of the Canyon. Below it is thousands of feet of sedimentary layers, all purported to be the result of the Flood right down to the Tapeats sandstone.

 

Attached File  gcanyon_big.jpg   113.36KB   1 downloads
 

Is it really rational to believe that the flood deposited all this sediment, then carted in the sand of the Cocconino (apparently from hundreds of miles away from eroded mountains according to Snelling et al), and at this point there were still live small vertebrates, millipedes, scorpions etc. still present and alive to lay tracks deep underwater ? There are also raindrop marks preserved.

There is so much more wrong with the creationist interpretation of the Grand Canyon. How are there even any limestone layers ?



#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 May 2017 - 03:35 AM

 

 

Wibble: It’s so facile to compare the Mt St. Helens canyon with the Grand Canyon. Does the Mt St helens one have different layers of shale, limestone, sandstone with attendant fossils particular to each stratum? No of course not, all the layers are volcanic in origin, with zero fossils. Who’s being dumb ?

 

It's a red-herring. If Mt St Helens is a volcanic event we wouldn't expect it to create shale, limestone and sandstone like a global flood would create. So your reasoning is like this; "would a female have a male organ like a man? No - therefore she is not human like a man".

 

"Wibble, here is fruit in my lunch box."

Wible; "haha! No apples, and you think you have fruit in your lunchbox! Hilarious!"

Next day;

"here is my lunchbox with fruit including apples."

Wibble; "Hahaha! No bananas, and you think you have fruit in your lunchbox!"

 

If you look at my specific claims with acuity, you will see that I am claiming specifically, NOT that Mt St Helens is identical to Grand canyon and basically is the same thing, but that it is 100% proven that certain geological features have happened quickly, such as canyons being cut out, with identical features to other canyons like Grand canyon.

 

Since it is KNOWN a canyon can happen quickly, with strata, then when I say that science, "knows" canyons can happen quickly, this is a correct understanding of the word, "know", whereas a hypothesis about canyons forming slowly, remains a hypothesis.

 

 

 

Wibble: The Cocconino sandstone layer is often put forward as the most damaging one for the creationist viewpoint and for good reason. It was formed from wind deposited sand dunes in a desert environment.

Deserts don’t form during a global flood.

We know that the Cocconino are of desert sand dune origin due to the angle of the laminations, the frosted nature of the sand grains and the presence of vertebrate and various arthropod tracks.

 

Wibble's usual failure to understand that science doesn't operate from affirming the consequent. I wonder if one day he will ever look into the error. Science doesn't, "know" anything except that those rock layers exist, to hypothesise how they came to exist isn't knowledge, nor do deductions and inferences from those hypotheses allow you to reverse the logic and conclude the hypothesis.

 

(and the dumb comment BK brought up was actually history in that thread, if you look at it in context and see my response after that to, "What If" and look at the dates you will see it was history.) In other words Wibble - look at all of the evidence rather than some of it, like when you only look at the evidence the Cocconino sandstaone gives that may seem to fit with long ages. You also have a bad memory, we have discussed the sandstone before and I gave you this link; Logically if a hypothesis can be created to explain evidence without relying on long ages, then how can you, "know" it formed that way? You, "know" nothing of the sort - you simply claim to know; but if two hypotheses exist that both have confirmation evidence, that is a PRIME EXAMPLE of why logically you can't infer that one is proven. (I admit this takes an understanding of the precise convolutions of logic, which you aren't qualified in, so I appreciate that you haven't studied the logic of science)

 

I told you at the time the tracks have been evidenced to have been made under water.

 

Another example is Laoporus (‘stone tracks’) from the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon. Most paleontologists attribute Laoporus to amphibians, many of the features of which resemble the tracks that salamanders, manoeuvring in shallow water, produced during experiments. Despite the difficulties explaining away this evidence for a wet environment, many geologists still interpret the Coconino Sandstone as a desert formation!4 Most creationists believe the geomorphology of the Coconino Sandstone and other formations found in the Grand Canyon, with their perfectly conformable flat contacts, massive areal extents and limited thickness (in relation to its extent, the Coconino is thinner than this page), represents a continental-scale Flood deposit, i.e. Noah’s Flood.

 

(in other words, when he takes into account all of the evidence, rather than just the pieces that favour uniformity which is the error you always seem to repeat, Wibble)

 

 

 

Wibble: Of course creationists (e.g. Dr Andrew Snelling of AiG) attack these interpretations stating that the bedding angle (average 24 deg) is too low for desert deposits and fits underwater sand waves (neglecting to mention that underwater ones are generally of less than 10 deg and observed range of desert ones encompass the Cocconino angle – and of course angles of desert layers would be flattened under compression when forming sandstone rock). Dr Leonard Brand of Loma Linda university (a Seventh Day Adventist Uni) did experiments in tanks where he chucked in salamanders on sand which gave results interpreted as consistent with those formed underwater (these assumed gentle currents not raging floodwaters).

 

(A watery desert eh?)

 

In fact the flume experiments and the speed of the waters for the canyon if I remember correctly, was about 8mph. It seems you only think of a flood in simplistic terms, the model for the flood in fact consists of different phases which created different types of geomorphology. (

 

Even your best case for this being a desert, doesn't count as an observed example of a canyon being cut over millions of years, whereas we know that a canyon at Mt St Helens was cut out in days. I think this topic is an attempt to SHIFT THE FOCUS onto the specific sandstone, the small layer of Cocconino sandstone, within that canyon.

 

I won't be taking the bait.

 

Logically if you are still struggling to understand the importance of deductive reasoning perhaps this will make it clearer;

 

- We have PROOF canyons are created quickly (we have observed it)

- We don't have any proof they are created slowly, only a hypothesis which speculates that they are and "some" of the evidence that would seem to fit. (as would be expected anyway when we have hundreds of different types of evidence, with a convoluted case, and all types of science that can be conducted on that evidence)

 

So by comparison, imagine by analogy I have a videotape showing Dr X murder a patient which is an example of PROOF that he is a murderer, whereas you only have a hypothesis and some evidence that might fit with it, that he is a good doctor, as you have testimonies from patients saying he is.

 

In this scenario are you saying you would take their testimony over 100% proof?

 

Conclusion Your style is to basically indulge observer bias. Example; "wow look at all of the ornaments intact in this room, no evidence of anything disturbed here", while ignoring an elephant standing in the middle of that room.

 

Secondly, you would endlessly go back and forth repeating your points about it being a desert, and as I have shown, alternative evidence at least suggests it might not be, which is why historical theories will never count as proof, something both I and Tirian tried to get you to understand with no luck; our point was this, that it doesn't matter logically, if you have confirmation evidence of hypothesis P, it breaks logical and scientific rules to then infer it is proof of P by affirming the consequent. Especially when you are basically accepting all evidence that is line with long ages, like the angles, but basically ditching any evidence it isn't in line with a desert and long ages, like with the potentially watery footprints and small size of the layer even under compaction.

 

This is all you do, yet you don't notice your own behaviour-pattern, you rubbish all evidence that doesn't fit with long ages even when that evidence is proof, like our observing a canyon cut in days which forms all of the features you would at least expect it to mimic for Grand Canyon, yet you glorify and sanctify all evidence of long ages.

 

This is special pleading fallacy - you done it in another thread when you said soft-tissued transitionals shouldn't be expected to be fossilised but one assumes you accept that jellyfish and octopus fossils would count as soft-bodied fossils. It's one rule for the evidence for evolution and long ages, which is sacrosanct and holy to you, and it's derision for the evidence supportive of NOT evolution and long ages, even when that evidence is actually more consequential because it is direct evidence, rather than indirect evidence dependent on conjecture and intepretation and extrapolation. You argue that watching Dr X murder on tape should be rubbished as evidence, and we should only favour the evidence from witnesses saying he is a good and benevolent doctor. (pardon the grammatical tautology).

 

This is my last comment in this thread, which I see as an attempt to SHIFT-THE-FOCUS, as the argument I gave which you quoted in message one, was all to do with events we have observed to happen, showing that actually have happened quickly and are caused by catastrophe. It is immensely logical and sane and intelligent to conclude that many features of the world we see were caused by catastrophe given that a settled climate just doesn't create those bizarre features. Is it a coincidence Wibble, that when a catastrophe like Mt St Helens happens, we get answers to all kinds of mysterious geomorphology? I think not, and I know how you hate coincidences and would never accept it as coincidence.

 

 

(I think the point about angles below is tenuous, what's important is HOW you get the specific tracks and the experiments shown how - in water, not in dry desert.)

 

 

 

Wibble: Of course creationists (e.g. Dr Andrew Snelling of AiG) attack these interpretations stating that the bedding angle (average 24 deg) is too low for desert deposits and fits underwater sand waves (neglecting to mention that underwater ones are generally of less than 10 deg and observed range of desert ones encompass the Cocconino angle – and of course angles of desert layers would be flattened under compression when forming sandstone rock). Dr Leonard Brand of Loma Linda university (a Seventh Day Adventist Uni) did experiments in tanks where he chucked in salamanders on sand which gave results interpreted as consistent with those formed underwater (these assumed gentle currents not raging floodwaters).

 

 

Austin: The footprint trackways in the Coconino Sandstone have recently been re-examined in the light of experimental studies by Dr Leonard Brand of Loma Linda University in California.8 His research program involved careful surveying and detailed measurements of 82 fossilized vertebrate trackways discovered in the Coconino Sandstone along the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon. He then observed and measured 236 experimental trackways made by living amphibians and reptiles in experimental chambers. These tracks were formed on sand beneath the water, on moist sand at the water’s edge, and on dry sand, the sand mostly sloping at an angle of 25 degrees, although some observations were made on slopes of 15deg; and 20° for comparison. Observations were also made of the underwater locomotion of five species of salamanders (amphibians) both in the laboratory and in their natural habitat, and measurements were again taken of their trackways.

A detailed statistical analysis of these data led to the conclusion, with a high degree of probability that the fossil tracks must have been made underwater. Whereas the experimental animals produce footprints under all test conditions, both up and down the 25° slopes of the laboratory ‘dunes’, all but one of the fossil trackways could only have been made by the animals in question climbing uphill. Toe imprints were generally distinct, whereas the prints of the soles were indistinct. These and other details were present in over 80% of the fossil, underwater and wet sand tracks, but less than 12% of the dry sand and damp sand tracks had any toe marks. Dry sand uphill tracks were usually just depressions, with no details................

Putting together all of his observations, Dr Brand thus came to the conclusion that the configurations and characteristics of the animals trackways made on the submerged sand surfaces most closely resembled the fossilized quadruped trackways of the Coconino Sandstone. Indeed, when the locomotion behaviour of the living amphibians is taken into account, the fossilized trackways can be interpreted as implying that the animals must have been entirely under water


#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 May 2017 - 03:54 AM

I actually said this about the "dumb" comment and a bit of a rant I gave, earlier in the thread;

 

"Fair enough, you have to forgive my rant, I get sick of reading the same thoughtless rhetoric from evo-bloggers."

 

Why Blitzking chose to rake up that comment presently I am not sure, perhaps he didn't read my apology to "What If", I had read a blogger by an evolutionist that made all of the usual and common and obtuse mistakes at the time and it frustrated me. It is frustrating when less intelligent people tell you that you are, "person P" while not even realising the string of predictable and obtuse errors they are making while formulating those stupid stereotypes. 

 

A lot of the time evolutionists don't realise how patronising they are because they are not aware that they only have ordinary intelligence, so when they create the stereotypes of creationists they love to create, and make all of the same rhetorical propagandist-type arguments I have heard before dozens and dozens of times over, even though they think their arguments are immensely clever, truly clever people can see that those arguments are simply things that have, "occurred" to them, conclusions they have jumped to based on the fact they only have ordinary intelligence and can't examine why their arguments are poorly formulated and riddled with fallacious content.

 

Not that this justifies me calling evolutionists "dumb" which is a generalisation fallacy anyway, but that is the reason why I was frustrated and worked up, and ranting, at the time, because the immensity of the dense, un-self concious, self-absorbed characteristics of the predictable average Joe, can be exceedingly TEDIOUS to constantly have to put up with. Especially when they are making out they are scientific rationalists, while creating irrational half-baked, unintelligent arguments.

 

My explanation is that they can only make out that creationists are the bad guys because basically the argument from creation makes a much better go of the direct facts, than the convoluted speculative intepretations of evolution theory, which come across as unconvincing scientifically varnished gibberish.

 

In other words, it annoys evolutionists that creation has an easy victory in debate, because they think that science, a sophisticated tool, should win out over what they perceive as, "religion", but if they unplugged their heads from their behinds, they would find out that they are losing the debate logically not because they fight religion, but because a lot of the time they are ignoring where the true scientific facts are pointing - in the direction of, "not evolution". If they can just make it to the neutral ground of, "not evolution" then they will start to see they have painted a version of history which was never even close to true.

 

I understand your annoyance when a lot of the facts previously interpreted to favour evolution, unravel like a mice's guts in a cat's claw when new data comes to light. Examples of this are self-explanatory; vestigials, pseudo-genes, natural selection, monera.....all of these topics at one time favoured evolution, but all you have to do is wait a while, and the cat will do it's job....and that's why I'm, "Laughing at the superior intellect". - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.

 

:acigar:

 

"shakadubididiwow.................C YA!!!" - Jim Carrey, The Mask.

 

 



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 May 2017 - 05:45 AM

You see Wibble, now I predict what you will do - ignore the toe imprints and focus on the evidence that fits with long ages, and say, "explain how the angle could be for a flood" but you aren't expected to explain how the toe imprints happened in dry sand.

 

You are a disingenuous person. You expect evidence contrary to creation to be explained, but ignore the evidence which doesn't fit your evolution and long ages. 

 

With you it's always the same - a double standard fallacy where it's one rule for evolution and another rule for creation. Like with the soft tissue fossils in another thread, where you said millions of soft-bodied transitional fossils wouldn't be expected because they are soft, but it's perfectly fine to have jellyfish and octopus be found as fossils.

 

It's goodbye to you. You're mikey-banned for excessively poor logic and lack of objective critical evaluation, it breaks the mikey rule written in invisible ink by Bonedigger, which only smart people can detect. :P



#5 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 28 May 2017 - 07:02 AM

You see Wibble, now I predict what you will do - ignore the toe imprints and focus on the evidence that fits with long ages, and say, "explain how the angle could be for a flood" but you aren't expected to explain how the toe imprints happened in dry sand.

 

You are a disingenuous person. You expect evidence contrary to creation to be explained, but ignore the evidence which doesn't fit your evolution and long ages. 

 

With you it's always the same - a double standard fallacy where it's one rule for evolution and another rule for creation. Like with the soft tissue fossils in another thread, where you said millions of soft-bodied transitional fossils wouldn't be expected because they are soft, but it's perfectly fine to have jellyfish and octopus be found as fossils.

 

It's goodbye to you. You're mikey-banned for excessively poor logic and lack of objective critical evaluation, it breaks the mikey rule written in invisible ink by Bonedigger, which only smart people can detect. :P

 

 

You don't half disgorge a load of unnecessary waffle whilst completely avoiding the main point, then running away from the topic.

 

I told you that we could go on endlessly with claims and counterclaims regarding the dune slope angle and how the animal tracks were formed. How am I ignoring anything ? It was me who brought up the Leonard Brand experimental study. It is you who ignore crushing evidence and logic against your position.

 

What I wanted to know from the YEC camp was how the observed facts...

 

1. The Cocconino contains  fossilised tetrapod and various arthropod tracks.

 

2. The Cocconino layer is placed on top of thousands of feet of sediment

 

...are reconciled with the Biblical flood.

 

You have this enormous, destructive cataclysm laying down all those layers over thousands of square miles.  After all that deposition sand eroded from mountains from hundreds of miles away is transported and laid on top.

 

You believe various creatures are still alive to be wandering about on underwater sand dunes instead of being long drowned and obliterated during this process ? How about applying some objective critical evaluation which you lamely accuse me of lacking.



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 May 2017 - 08:00 AM

Yawn.



#7 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 28 May 2017 - 08:16 AM

Yawn.


Inability to come up with any kind of rational explanation noted.

#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 May 2017 - 08:41 AM

 

 

Wibble: Inability to come up with any kind of rational explanation noted

 

Oh yeah that's what it is. Like my silence is me falling, "flat on my face".

 

In case you didn't notice Wibble, you addressed ZERO PERCENT of my previous posts. So your pretentious attempt to pretend that my lack of interest is intellectual failure by not answering your repeated argumentation, is highly transparent, for the true inability to come up with an explanation, is with you, for you addressed none of things I gave in my lengthy rebuttal.

 

Your answer to all of those specific points was this one empty and arrogant assertion; "you don't half disgorge a load of unnecessary waffle whilst completely avoiding the main point, then running away from the topic"

 

1. I am merely disinterested in your red-herring topic, which is only designed to change the true and original topic as I previously explained, because your original quote wasn't a topic about the sandstone in the Grand Canyon, my comments were about the observation of a canyon 1/40th the scale of grand canyon being actually scientifically recorded to have happened in days and producing many of the features of the larger version which I was arguing is proof that canyons can be caused catastrophically.

 

2. Simply saying "I win, you're running away" while you are the one running away by not answering any of my counter points, is an ABSURD attempt to pretend that somehow you are the victor because I am not going to come back to this thread to have your arguments repeated at me ad-nauseam.

 

No, a lack of participation isn't intellectual silence, for your post was participation, but it was intellectual silence because you didn't address my counter-points meaning you are the one running away, by hiding in plain sight with cocky and false words of victory which hide the fact your post was contentless, intellectually.

 

 

 

Wibble: I told you that we could go on endlessly with claims and counterclaims regarding the dune slope angle and how the animal tracks were formed. How am I ignoring anything ?

 

Because this statement is a tacit admission that you are not going to address my counter-points because you have no answers, I have given detailed answers in my previous posts which the readers should note you have ignored by calling it, "waffle" even though that, "waffle" specifically addressed the points you made and shown them to be 100% wrong.

 

"I could go on forever baby." - Gangster, Home Alone 2.

 

Advice; Don't mistake my lack of participation in your thread with intellectual silence. Your participation, WAS intellectual silence, because the content of your post was 0% debate-content, you merely repeated your questions and bandied about some question begging epithets, with terms such as, "waffle" and, "running away". (putting your rhetorical SPIN on my actions). If you still don't get it, if the heavyweight champion of boxing says he can't be bothered with a fight, yes, a puny 6 stone challenger could stand in the ring shouting, "haha, see, running away, he could never beat me", and not actually show he had any boxing skills.

 

Sure - that would really prove that the 6 stone braggart was a professional boxer able to beat the champion. :rolleyes:... (hint; might you not take my lack of participation for what it is? A feeling that it is tediously futile to discuss these things with you. How many endlessly circular topics do you want to begin, where you make it crystal clear you will never accept anything a creationist says even if that creationist is correct?)



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 May 2017 - 09:12 AM

 

Wibble: You have this enormous, destructive cataclysm laying down all those layers over thousands of square miles.  After all that deposition sand eroded from mountains from hundreds of miles away is transported and laid on top.

 

You believe various creatures are still alive to be wandering about on underwater sand dunes instead of being long drowned and obliterated during this process ? How about applying some objective critical evaluation which you lamely accuse me of lacking.

 

Here's your critical evaluation; you are basically arguing an implicit argument from incredulity.

 

You don't believe it happened that way or could have happened, therefore conclude it didn't.

 

Did you ever actually attempt to open a book about it, and read some of the explanations they have given for the flood model? One things I will say is that the flood was a chaotic event, and since when did chaos lead to simple outcomes? Do you expect no convolutions for a flood? Heck even for a murder case the convolutions can be so dense that nobody can figure out anything and people go free.

 

What are you saying, that a creationist should have instant fiat knowledge of all of the convoluted and complicated factors of a flood, on hand and ready to go because a world flood is happening everyday and the YEC should be omniscient about it?

 

The one thing I am sure about is that some things we will never have an answer to until they happen. Recently at Mt St Helens the created/transported rocks from rock avalanches at the explosion, took the rocks 30 miles away from the mountain, transporting the matter there. Previously no scientist would have associated such distance rocks as being relevant to volcanic activity that far away. Previously nobody would have guessed a canyon could be cut out in days.

 

Think now if that event had never happened, wouldn't you probably be saying this had it never happened; "how can a canyon be reconciled to a quick catastrophe like the flood, they take millions of years to be cut."

 

So you argue from your own ignorance of the convolutions and complications of an unprecedented world-scale disaster nobody has every scientifically witnessed.

 

"It doesn't make sense I don't have an answer for it, therefore it didn't happen."



#10 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 28 May 2017 - 02:18 PM

In case you didn't notice Wibble, you addressed ZERO PERCENT of my previous posts. So your pretentious attempt to pretend that my lack of interest is intellectual failure by not answering your repeated argumentation, is highly transparent, for the true inability to come up with an explanation, is with you, for you addressed none of things I gave in my lengthy rebuttal.

Your answer to all of those specific points was this one empty and arrogant assertion; "you don't half disgorge a load of unnecessary waffle whilst completely avoiding the main point, then running away from the topic"

1. I am merely disinterested in your red-herring topic, which is only designed to change the true and original topic as I previously explained, because your original quote wasn't a topic about the sandstone in the Grand Canyon, my comments were about the observation of a canyon 1/40th the scale of grand canyon being actually scientifically recorded to have happened in days and producing many of the features of the larger version which I was arguing is proof that canyons can be caused catastrophically.

2. Simply saying "I win, you're running away" while you are the one running away by not answering any of my counter points, is an ABSURD attempt to pretend that somehow you are the victor because I am not going to come back to this thread to have your arguments repeated at me ad-nauseam.

No, a lack of participation isn't intellectual silence, for your post was participation, but it was intellectual silence because you didn't address my counter-points meaning you are the one running away, by hiding in plain sight with cocky and false words of victory which hide the fact your post was contentless, intellectually.


What prompted me to snip into the OP that particular piece of text that you wrote in response to the mainstream view GC article that Whatif linked was because of these two statements:

"Perhaps if he has some important points you could highlight them, so I can refute them for you, in my sleep."

"No direct facts at all - but we have"

So because you seemed to think you had all the answers regarding the Grand Canyon, I thought I’d check that out.

As for direct facts, that is what I have asked you to respond to – the fact of the animal tracks being placed on top of the fact of thousands of feet of sediment.

You have completely failed to offer any kind of solution aside from vague mutterings about a chaotic flood. A flood powerful enough to grind a mountain range into sand, transport all this sand in suspension hundreds of miles in a matter of days to dump on top of thousands of feet of previously eroded and dumped material is not going to contain live animals to dandily patter over some sediment deep underwater. Come on, be reasonable.

I started this thread, so I can decide what I want to focus on because if there is no plausible way of the animals to be alive and well to make those tracks then any debate about whether those tracks can be made underwater is moot.

By the way when I say we know the Coconino is of desert origin if you want I can rephrase it to being that the overwhelming consensus is that it is so. The only dissenters are those who adhere to a literal Genesis. I wonder why that is ? Mainstream scientists have no a priori commitment to the layer being terrestrial, it wouldn’t make any difference either way in terms of worldview as most GC layers are shallow marine. If the accumulated evidence of the Coconino was genuinely that it was subaqueous then that would be the consensus, but it isn’t.
 

Did you ever actually attempt to open a book about it, and read some of the explanations they have given for the flood model? One things I will say is that the flood was a chaotic event, and since when did chaos lead to simple outcomes? Do you expect no convolutions for a flood?
What are you saying, that a creationist should have instant fiat knowledge of all of the convoluted and complicated factors of a flood, on hand and ready to go because a world flood is happening everyday and the YEC should be omniscient about it?


Yes I have read plenty of creationist material, I even watched a Leonard Brand lecture on the subject on youtube the other day.

I haven't seen anything to explain the apparent good health of the track making animals in the midst of the violence though.

Just throwing out that the flood was chaotic as your only offering is not an impressive answer. If you were really objective then you would have to admit that the presence of tracks make zero sense with a belief in the Flood but as you’ve previously admitted about evolution, no evidence will change your mind.



#11 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 29 May 2017 - 03:30 PM

 

Wibble: Of course creationists (e.g. Dr Andrew Snelling of AiG) attack these interpretations stating that the bedding angle (average 24 deg) is too low for desert deposits and fits underwater sand waves (neglecting to mention that underwater ones are generally of less than 10 deg and observed range of desert ones encompass the Cocconino angle – and of course angles of desert layers would be flattened under compression when forming sandstone rock). Dr Leonard Brand of Loma Linda university (a Seventh Day Adventist Uni) did experiments in tanks where he chucked in salamanders on sand which gave results interpreted as consistent with those formed underwater (these assumed gentle currents not raging floodwaters).

 

Austin: The footprint trackways in the Coconino Sandstone have recently been re-examined in the light of experimental studies by [/size]Dr Leonard Brand[/size] of Loma Linda University in California.[/size]8 His research program involved careful surveying and detailed measurements of 82 fossilized vertebrate trackways discovered in the Coconino Sandstone along the Hermit Trail in Grand Canyon. He then observed and measured 236 experimental trackways made by living amphibians and reptiles in experimental chambers. These tracks were formed on sand beneath the water, on moist sand at the water’s edge, and on dry sand, the sand mostly sloping at an angle of 25 degrees, although some observations were made on slopes of 15deg; and 20° for comparison. Observations were also made of the underwater locomotion of five species of salamanders (amphibians) both in the laboratory and in their natural habitat, and measurements were again taken of their trackways.[/size]
A detailed statistical analysis of these data led to the conclusion, with a high degree of probability that the fossil tracks must have been made underwater. Whereas the experimental animals produce footprints under all test conditions, both up and down the 25° slopes of the laboratory ‘dunes’, all but one of the fossil trackways could only have been made by the animals in question climbing uphill. Toe imprints were generally distinct, whereas the prints of the soles were indistinct. These and other details were present in over 80% of the fossil, underwater and wet sand tracks, but less than 12% of the dry sand and damp sand tracks had any toe marks. Dry sand uphill tracks were usually just depressions, with no details................
Putting together all of his observations, Dr Brand thus came to the conclusion that the configurations and characteristics of the animals trackways made on the submerged sand surfaces most closely resembled the fossilized quadruped trackways of the Coconino Sandstone. Indeed, when the locomotion behaviour of the living amphibians is taken into account, the fossilized trackways can be interpreted as implying that the animals must have been entirely under water[/size]

 


Even your best evidence for underwater track making is not as favourable to you as you think it is as the same impressions can be made in damp sand. In Dr Brand's own words:

"The results reported here now confirm that good trackways can be produced in damp sand. When the sand was moderately moistened and left overnight, it then had enough cohesion to produce good impressions."

"The data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may have been produced in either subaqueous sand or subaerial damp sand"

Variations in Salamander Trackways Resulting from Substrate Differences
Leonard R. Brand
Journal of Paleontology
Vol. 70, No. 6 (Nov., 1996), pp. 1004-1010

 

One can easily visualize the desert dunes being moistened by rain or dew, then a reptile or scorpion scuttling over leaving tracks to be covered by blown or slumped sand.

 

Somewhat more difficult to imagine under your scenario...
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users