Jump to content


Photo

Grand Canyon Layers


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 June 2017 - 07:02 AM

Wibble, ironically you accused me of slothful induction. A cursory examination of AIG's articles in fact show that a flood can explain many of the features of Grand Canyon and the lack of expected long-age evidences, by majority. The majority of the evidence can't be explained by long ages.

 

The majority of the evidence seems explainable by a catastrophe carving it out, and there are many questions for long ages, many problems, but it seems you choose to focus on the relatively minor issues for a flood.

 

So if you focus on say two problems for a flood but ignore say ten major problems for long ages, is that fair?

 

 

 

AIG: Debris Not in the Present River Delta

Almost 1,000 cubic miles (4,000 cubic km) of material has been eroded to form the Grand Canyon. Where did it go? If the canyon was eroded by the Colorado River, an enormous delta should be found at the mouth of the river where it empties into the Gulf of California. But the delta contains only a small fraction of this eroded material.15 This same problem is found with most river deltas; they only contain enough material to represent thousands, not millions, of years of erosion.

Stable Cliffs

One of the most striking features of the Grand Canyon is the massive sheer cliffs of sedimentary rocks. It is the difference in the rocks’ makeup that gives the canyon its color and progressive stair-stepped profile of cliffs above broad slopes. The cliffs are made mostly of limestone and sandstone, with some formations reaching 500 feet (150 m) in thickness. The dark, almost black, color of large sections of the sheer cliffs is due to a coating of desert varnish, which develops slowly over many years16 and is indicative of their stability. Where recent rockfalls occur, the desert varnish is missing. The fact that the cliffs maintain their desert varnish color indicates they are rarely experiencing even minor rockfalls; thus they are very stable. This is only consistent with their formation by recent catastrophic erosion, not millions of years of slow erosion.

No Talus

The lack of debris, or talus, at the base of the cliffs is also a challenge to the evolutionary model. Over millions of years of erosion, one would expect to find large amounts of talus at the base of the cliffs within the Grand Canyon.17 The most obvious areas of this lack of talus is within the side canyons ending in broad U-shaped amphitheaters. Some of these amphitheaters are hundreds of feet deep and extend back as much as a mile (1.6 km) from the river. The majority have no water source to remove material, yet the bases of most of these cliffs are relatively “clean,” with very little talus. Within the evolutionary model, there is no mechanism for the removal of this material.

Relict Landforms

The stability of the Grand Canyon cliffs and the lack of talus at their bases are indicative of the canyon being a relict landform. In other words, the Grand Canyon has changed very little since it was carved. It is a relatively unchanged remnant or relict of the event that eroded it, which therefore could not have been today’s slow river processes extrapolated back into the past.



#22 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 06 June 2017 - 03:00 PM

 

Wibble: Your words have not explained how a deeply incised meander could form in soft sediment forming near vertical walls (clearly even if a meander did form, which it wouldn't under such a flow, the soft sediment walls would collapse under their own weight)

 
Referee fallacy coupled with argumentum ad ignorantiam, "It wouldn't happen like this and I've never seen it happen therefore it didn't", forgive me for not taking your word for it that you know the hydraulic effects of a world scale flood. Lol.
  
Look Wibble, all we need is watery action, some of it can happen slow, sometimes you just need fast water and soft mud for something that would take slow water and hard mud eons of time to cut out. I just can't see a difficulty, if we have some undulations, and we get some harder segments which the water can't push over, you get something called an inselburg or a rock-island, then the water is forced to flow around it, then initially if there are some small grooves enough to create a "corner" so to speak, and the water can't pass over the hard remnant (as harder currents couldn't push it over anyway), then the water will take the path of least resistance around the forming bends which can later become more pronounced as the erosion builds up.

 


Instead of simply asserting that huge volumes of rapidly flowing water could defy the laws of physics and take a tight meandering course through soft mud perhaps you could provide a real world example of this happening ?

 
If you can't see the difficulty then a "lover of truth" as you claim to be you are most certainly not. What's with the ad hoc rock island ? Where did this come from ? Your flood has supposed to have laid fine grained sedimentary layers over thousands of square miles, those meander photos I showed you do not have the river circumventing some isolated abnormal hard block composed of some different material to adjacent areas, the strata are of laterally continuous layers.
 
By postulating something so implausible and completely lacking in evidence I think you understand the pickle you are in but are too proud to admit it.
 
It's also funny how you claim fast water with soft mud can do the same thing quickly as slow water with hard mud over eons of time when previously you seemed to be denying the possibility of long age erosion.

 

 

Wibble: You have argued that Mt St Helens proves a canyon can be formed quickly. I don't know the name of the fallacy you've committed (slothful induction ?) but that doesn't therefore prove the GC was also formed quickly

 
Strawman fallacy is the name of the fallacy you've committed here. :P
 
I said Mt St Helens proves a canyon can be caused quickly, whereas there is no proof one can be made slowly.
 
So then bif you put a canyon in front of me and ask; "what's the cause, slow, millions of years or fast considering here is one that looks the same cut out in days and even mimics the ridge and gully, peculiar topography, and has all kinds of features the same as it?"
 
That shows me that it's proven that such a canyon can be cut quickly. I'm going to go with the scientifically observed facts on that one. You can stick to your evolution story if you want, it's your choice. ;)

 


No proof that a canyon can be made slowly ? As in we don't have a time machine to observe the whole process, that old creationist fall back tactic ? Given slow erosion rates and a long time why wouldn't it ? Are you saying rivers aren't capable of eroding the substrate they flow over ? Do you deny coastal erosion as well ?
 
Of course the Grand Canyon is a special case where a river originally flowed slowly over low lying ground but the plateau was uplifted during the Laramide orogeny (which also produced the Rocky Mts to the east) causing the river to incise deeply due to the increased energy (there may have been a joining of two separate rivers at some stage that created the entire canyon extent)
 
You are trying to spin it that the Mt St Helens canyon shares many features of the GC but the reality is you have provided very little. The only specific things you've said is that there is lamination features - which is irrelevant because we both say (except for me exceptions like Coconino) that the GC layers were laid by water (not pyroclastic flow from a volcano ). You also mentioned "grooves and scratches" but that is irrelevant also as the GC was never glaciated so doesn't have these features. A superficial resemblance as in they are both canyons is a weak argument for similar origin because of the very different features that I have shown you.

 

 

Wibble:  but the fact is you have engaged in this but not supplied anything satisfactory and no one else has produced anything at all.

 
Wibble's usual propaganda then, I give thousands of words of explanation even by his own admission, and he doesn't address any of my specific points but goes on a rant about how it couldn't happen again and I get the blame for what he is actually doing, which is not engaging the counter-points I have shown. Any attempt to show him features of Mt St Helens exactly the same and I am speaking thousands of words of gibberish.

 


I said obfuscation not explanation. I think I've addressed all your specific points that are anywhere near relevant.



#23 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 06 June 2017 - 03:37 PM

Wibble, ironically you accused me of slothful induction. A cursory examination of AIG's articles in fact show that a flood can explain many of the features of Grand Canyon and the lack of expected long-age evidences, by majority. The majority of the evidence can't be explained by long ages.
 
The majority of the evidence seems explainable by a catastrophe carving it out, and there are many questions for long ages, many problems, but it seems you choose to focus on the relatively minor issues for a flood.
 
So if you focus on say two problems for a flood but ignore say ten major problems for long ages, is that fair?


AIG: Debris Not in the Present River Delta
Almost 1,000 cubic miles (4,000 cubic km) of material has been eroded to form the Grand Canyon. Where did it go? If the canyon was eroded by the Colorado River, an enormous delta should be found at the mouth of the river where it empties into the Gulf of California. But the delta contains only a small fraction of this eroded material.15 This same problem is found with most river deltas; they only contain enough material to represent thousands, not millions, of years of erosion.
Stable Cliffs
One of the most striking features of the Grand Canyon is the massive sheer cliffs of sedimentary rocks. It is the difference in the rocks’ makeup that gives the canyon its color and progressive stair-stepped profile of cliffs above broad slopes. The cliffs are made mostly of limestone and sandstone, with some formations reaching 500 feet (150 m) in thickness. The dark, almost black, color of large sections of the sheer cliffs is due to a coating of desert varnish, which develops slowly over many years16 and is indicative of their stability. Where recent rockfalls occur, the desert varnish is missing. The fact that the cliffs maintain their desert varnish color indicates they are rarely experiencing even minor rockfalls; thus they are very stable. This is only consistent with their formation by recent catastrophic erosion, not millions of years of slow erosion.
No Talus
The lack of debris, or talus, at the base of the cliffs is also a challenge to the evolutionary model. Over millions of years of erosion, one would expect to find large amounts of talus at the base of the cliffs within the Grand Canyon.17 The most obvious areas of this lack of talus is within the side canyons ending in broad U-shaped amphitheaters. Some of these amphitheaters are hundreds of feet deep and extend back as much as a mile (1.6 km) from the river. The majority have no water source to remove material, yet the bases of most of these cliffs are relatively “clean,” with very little talus. Within the evolutionary model, there is no mechanism for the removal of this material.
Relict Landforms
The stability of the Grand Canyon cliffs and the lack of talus at their bases are indicative of the canyon being a relict landform. In other words, the Grand Canyon has changed very little since it was carved. It is a relatively unchanged remnant or relict of the event that eroded it, which therefore could not have been today’s slow river processes extrapolated back into the past.

 
You are indulging in unsupported assertions saying things like the majority of evidence is better supported by your flood rather than the secular explanation. You assert ten "major" problems, then list four argument from AiG which actually boil down to two arguments as they are variations on the same theme.
 
The supposed lack of eroded material is not even a problem, let alone a major one. Eroded cliff material gets transported downstream (more especially during periods of elevated flow/spates.) The delta does not contain the entire bulk of material from the canyon because currents in the Gulf of California will remove it. Also limestone may simply dissolve before it even gets there.
 
As for stable cliffs, the harder layers like the Redwall limestone may hold for a longer time but soft shale layers (which form the sloping sections) will erode at a faster rate. Therefore you eventually get an overhang of the harder layer which will periodically collapse when it can no longer support its own weight. Just because the harder layers can last long enough to have a 'desert varnish' does not mean they are only 4500 years old ! Even the AiG mentions they are subject to rockfalls occasionally, how is that an argument against millions of years ?
 
Of course AiG highlighting the vertical nature of the walls ruins their own belief that they were eroded when soft ! Surely, Mr Truthseeker, you can see that if they were soft then they would just slump and collapse ?

#24 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 08 June 2017 - 08:51 AM

In Mike the Wiz's defense, he's just a creationist, not a young earth creationist. He previously stated he was open to both young earths or old earths. It is not his subject of expertise. If any young earth creationist would step up and defend the AiG statements would be more conductive to the discussion.

 

As it stands now, the conclusion from this small discussion is that the cause of the Grand Canyon is not a single flood event. The other known method of Canyon forming is erosion (wind + water) which would take hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years. If any Young Earther wants to step in that would be ok.



#25 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 June 2017 - 11:44 AM

 

 

Fjuri: In Mike the Wiz's defense, he's just a creationist, not a young earth creationist. He previously stated he was open to both young earths or old earths. It is not his subject of expertise. If any young earth creationist would step up and defend the AiG statements would be more conductive to the discussion.

 

I appreciate that there are some atheists who recognise things and are more observant than other ones. (As you also noticed I was happy to have mischief in the other thread, with the talking snakes.) But then some are interested in understanding other people better, but others just live to oppose, oppose, oppose. :rolleyes: 

 

I can't type much as I have fractured my thumb, and old injury that "opens" from time to time, and even using my index finger hurts a bit. But I will say that my view of historical science, is that it can't offer any genuinely solid conclusion.

 

Can I really know what happened and how the rocks got there? Technically no, because for all we know it could be neither eons of erosion or Noah's flood but in fact something else. This is the problem, we can never know but it seems to me Wibble is very annoyed that I won't be dogmatic about it, and convert to the old earth position. I accept the flood because I believe the Lord knows because He was there but there is a possibility I have misunderstood the evidence.

 

Conclusion; there will always be something of a mystery to history, perhaps that's why history fascinates me because there will always be that element of wonder. Obviously as creationist I believe the flood was a world flood, that created the fossils, but if it only created a couple of layers and I am wrong and YECs are wrong, my answer is; okay then.

 

These things aren't a matter of dogma to me, I am just convinced the flood explains the clear elements of catastrophe that answer for so many peculiar facts.

 

I can be convinced the flood catastrophe is what best explains it without claiming proof because I understand historical hypotheses can't offer proof, only confirmation evidence. But I don't believe Wibble understands this properly, I think that he thinks a tally of confirmation evidence provides proof of old age. It is harder to describe the technical differences to him because he tends to start saying things like, "you waffle on about irrelevant things." In the following message I tried to explain it; (message #12. As you can see I tried to be fair about it but he tends to enjoy;  :argue: 

 

http://evolutionfair...hains/?p=136458

 

 



#26 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 08 June 2017 - 03:02 PM

In Mike the Wiz's defense, he's just a creationist, not a young earth creationist. He previously stated he was open to both young earths or old earths. It is not his subject of expertise. If any young earth creationist would step up and defend the AiG statements would be more conductive to the discussion.

 

As it stands now, the conclusion from this small discussion is that the cause of the Grand Canyon is not a single flood event. The other known method of Canyon forming is erosion (wind + water) which would take hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years. If any Young Earther wants to step in that would be ok.

 

I believe Mike has said that he is open to an old Universe because of the evidence from distant starlight, and even an old Earth, but he does not seem to be open to the possibility of Life being more than a few thousand years old.

 

Therefore he has to believe that the Flood (and therefore the Grand Canyon) is also young because the sedimentary layers contain all those fossils. That is why he has to firmly resist the evidence I've given him that the GC can not be the result of a single, monumental flood event.

 

If he can be open to an old Universe I'm not sure why he can't ditch 6000 yrs (or a bit more) completely. Except of course he is influenced by a literal interpretation of Genesis which colours his thinking.

 

It would be great if someone else would step up on this topic but it ain't happening.



#27 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 June 2017 - 02:53 AM

 

 

Wibble: That is why he has to firmly resist the evidence I've given him that the GC can not be the result of a single, monumental flood event.

 

And I suggest to Fjuri that the highlighted words show a misunderstanding of what inductive reason can give you in historical hypotheses. To think some types of evidence can mean something "can't" have happened that way when a lot of the evidence favours that it might have, just means the same as it does for any inductive case, that you have areas of evidence which favour it and areas that don't. I could say the very same thing for long ages, "this soft rhino horn tissue means it can not be the result of long ages." But I don't say that because I know why I can't.

 

I suggest that until Wibble understands that confirmation evidence isn't affirmation evidence, then he will continue to think that his case is proven.

 

The reason I don't accept GC is the result of eons of time is because of all of the reasons I have given as to why there is nothing stopping it from being carved quickly. That's what you need to realise Wibble, nothing can allow you to state, "this did not happen by catastrophe" because if you went back in a time machine, for all you know it could have happened that way, and the evidence you give as to why it couldn't have, may be explainable.

 

I have tried to explain this to you before by analogy, here is one more; imagine a suspect in a crime thought to have stolen an object in a plastic bag says he didn't even know what the object was when he looked over the garden wall. Now imagine we show a photograph showing that the object in the plastic bag can't be seen, taken at a time when it wasn't stolen. This isn't a brilliant analogy, I'm only making it to highlight the point that certain types of evidence don't allow you to say "this cause CAN'T be the cause". Now in fact if you say "it is proven from the photograph, nobody could see what the item was inside the bag" (let us pretend this is an important aspect in proving innocence), but if you conclude, "he CAN'T have stolen the item as the thief had to know what it was first", how does time evade us?

 

This is the key issue with all historical cases. Time can hide explanations. Essentially your position is therefore an argument from ignorance and you don't even know it. Your argument is that "if there isn't an explanation which satisfies Wibble, therefore it can't have happened that way."

 

Now imagine if we went back in a time machine to the moment where he is looking at the item in the bag, and it is windy that day, and the wind blows and the outer plastic bag blows so close to the item inside it, that it reveals the name of the item in big, clear letters.

 

THAT is why there are no scientific/logical rules which allow you to state that something, "can't" have happened in history, because, you simply don't know that. For all you know, the horseshoe bend occurred for similar reasons I described, and who are you to say it didn't? You can only point to evidence that suggests it might not have happened that way, and INFLATE that evidence by saying, "this means it CAN'T have happened" but if we can give explanations why it still might have, (which I have and you ignore constantly), then it may well have happened that way, and there may even be explanations which TIME hides, like with the stolen bag, because of our ignorance. So then you argue logical positivism, that something isn't true unless humans find it. ( human arrogance) (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

 

Learn it then complain, but don't complain without learning or you represent a bag of wind.



#28 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 June 2017 - 03:18 AM

Example 2; "this soft tissue can't last millions of years". 

 

But imagine if there is a rare explanation which means it somehow can? Sure, it fits youth but logically that doesn't mean I have PROOF it's young. It's powerful evidence of youth. So then if that is powerful evidence of youth and we have powerful evidence of age, then we have a deductive proof that neither can prove either.

 

(but to understand this, you have to sit there for a while until it, "clicks". Just reading my words isn't enough to understand the logic, you have to figure it out.)

 

Correct conclusion; We don't know, however powerful our case.

 

Example 3; we have two suspects for Jack The Ripper, in one case the evidence is as equally powerful as the other, can you say; "this case is so strong, it cannot be the other case!"

 

Correct answer; "No. Logical rules means you speak only from bias, for if this evidence PROVES the matter, then since the evidence in the other case is equivalent, that means that other case is PROVEN, meaning Jack the Ripper was Peter Brown AND Bob Smith".

 

(see where it leads? But then asking Wibble to include reasoning in his posts, perhaps is too optimistic a request. :P

 

(so then if Wibble's strongest evidence proves age then the strongest evidence for youth proves youth, meaning the grand canyon was created over millions of years and was also laid down in one year during the flood.)

 

Hint; law of non-contradiction.



#29 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 09 June 2017 - 04:18 AM

 

 

 

Wibble: That is why he has to firmly resist the evidence I've given him that the GC can not be the result of a single, monumental flood event.

 

And I suggest to Fjuri that the highlighted words show a misunderstanding of what inductive reason can give you in historical hypotheses. To think some types of evidence can mean something "can't" have happened that way when a lot of the evidence favours that it might have, just means the same as it does for any inductive case, that you have areas of evidence which favour it and areas that don't. I could say the very same thing for long ages, "this soft rhino horn tissue means it can not be the result of long ages." But I don't say that because I know why I can't.

The statements are different. 

- The GC cannot be the result of a single, monumental flood event.

= conclusion congruent with the current scientific understanding of the world = confirmation

- The soft tissue cannot be the result of long ages

= conclusion in conflict with the current scientific understanding of the world, therefor further research is required (and has been solved since according to this, further discussion is off topic here). = affirmation

 

I suggest that until Wibble understands that confirmation evidence isn't affirmation evidence, then he will continue to think that his case is proven.

Let us all, shall we?

 

The reason I don't accept GC is the result of eons of time is because of all of the reasons I have given as to why there is nothing stopping it from being carved quickly. That's what you need to realise Wibble, nothing can allow you to state, "this did not happen by catastrophe" because if you went back in a time machine, for all you know it could have happened that way, and the evidence you give as to why it couldn't have, may be explainable.

Actually, the meandering path of the Colorado river and the valley rules out a quick carving. As was explained.

The reason you don't accept GC is the result of eons of time is because of prior conceptions and the inability to reconcile old earth with creation, despite publicly claiming otherwise. Its a subject you avoid in general.

 

I have tried to explain this to you before by analogy, here is one more; imagine a suspect in a crime thought to have stolen an object in a plastic bag says he didn't even know what the object was when he looked over the garden wall. Now imagine we show a photograph showing that the object in the plastic bag can't be seen, taken at a time when it wasn't stolen. This isn't a brilliant analogy, I'm only making it to highlight the point that certain types of evidence don't allow you to say "this cause CAN'T be the cause". Now in fact if you say "it is proven from the photograph, nobody could see what the item was inside the bag" (let us pretend this is an important aspect in proving innocence), but if you conclude, "he CAN'T have stolen the item as the thief had to know what it was first", how does time evade us?

 

This is the key issue with all historical cases. Time can hide explanations. Essentially your position is therefore an argument from ignorance and you don't even know it. Your argument is that "if there isn't an explanation which satisfies Wibble, therefore it can't have happened that way."

It has nothing to do with Wibble. Why are you attempting to make this personal btw? Doesn't it work on the technical issue anymore? I had given you a way out. You could have gotten away with "not my area of expertise". 

 

My view on "historical science" nicely illustrated by darkmatter2525

 

THAT is why there are no scientific/logical rules which allow you to state that something, "can't" have happened in history, because, you simply don't know that. For all you know, the horseshoe bend occurred for similar reasons I described, and who are you to say it didn't? You can only point to evidence that suggests it might not have happened that way, and INFLATE that evidence by saying, "this means it CAN'T have happened" but if we can give explanations why it still might have, (which I have and you ignore constantly), then it may well have happened that way, and there may even be explanations which TIME hides, like with the stolen bag, because of our ignorance. So then you argue logical positivism, that something isn't true unless humans find it. ( human arrogance) (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Finally, out of 21 lines of text, there are 4 which aren't purely waffling about.

The mechanisms of forming meanders are actually very well known. The rate at which material is cut away and deposited to form the bends is so low that it will take at least hundreds of thousands of years to get the amount of curvature and shape as seen in the grand canyon. 

 

If you want to look at meanders being formed in real time, during different stages, open google maps (or google earth or another map tool) and look at the Mississippi, you can see different stages of meanders. If you like working with analogies, put them in the right order and you have a film (consisting of different frames) of how meanders form. 



#30 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 09 June 2017 - 04:00 PM

THAT is why there are no scientific/logical rules which allow you to state that something, "can't" have happened in history, because, you simply don't know that. For all you know, the horseshoe bend occurred for similar reasons I described, and who are you to say it didn't? You can only point to evidence that suggests it might not have happened that way, and INFLATE that evidence by saying, "this means it CAN'T have happened" but if we can give explanations why it still might have, (which I have and you ignore constantly), then it may well have happened that way, and there may even be explanations which TIME hides, like with the stolen bag, because of our ignorance. [/font]


Mike it is matter of looking at evidences objectively. Hiding behind the fact that I haven’t directly observed the GC forming is a very weak argument and shows that you have no real argument at all.

 

There comes a point when there is a convergence of evidence, especially where each of the evidences strongly point to a certain conclusion, when it becomes perverse to carry on denying the likely reality of that conclusion.

 

Just because you can think up some sort of response to a given piece of evidence, does not mean that idea automatically has equal weight. Like with your response to the presence of the horseshoe bend. The laws of physics dictate that meanders must form slowly in soft sediment. Your response involved a completely ad hoc idea of a rock island that deflected the forced the flow into a meander. Almost plausible if it existed (though not actually as such a rock would just deflect or divide the flow not send the river back on itself) but such a geological entity doesn’t exist at the site does it ? And you completely overlook the problem of there being absolutely no reason for a flood to deposit a massive block in such a way suspended above fine sediment layers.

 

With the problem of the presence of animal tracks located on top of a mile of supposed flood layers you have no answer at all.

How you get vertical walls of strata formed from wet sediment ? Also no answer.

 

And nor has anyone else.

 

This is evidence that does not need inflating, it speaks for itself.

 

These facts amongst many others is why it is perverse not to accept mainstream reasoning on this. If you didn’t have a commitment to a literal Genesis then you would agree.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users