Jump to content


Photo

Grand Canyon...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
10 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 February 2007 - 01:48 AM

The Grand Canyon is said to have formed in 5-6 million years from the erosion of the Colorado river. For easy math we will say it is 6 million years old.

The Grand Canyon's lowest point is said to be 6,000 feet. So 6,000 feet in 6 million years means the erosion averaged 1,000 feet per million years. Given the erosion was a near constant (stayed about the same per 1 million years).

What this also means is that the first 1,000 feet have been exposed to the elements for at least 5 million years. Which also means that the horizontal erosion from the Colorado River should be a lot less visible, or not showing, in that first 1000 feet of erosion compared to the lower horizontal erosion marks. The lower you go, the more pronounced the erosion marks should be because of less exposure (in millions of years) compared to the higher parts.

Also there should be 5 million years of vertical erosion from rain. Which should have wiped out any horizontal erosion from the river. But is that what we see?

Posted Image

Nope. In fact the horizontal erosion on the top of the Grand Canyon are just as deeply cut as the ones on the bottom. And there is virtually no vertical erosion. So how does rock resist vertical erosion from rain for 5 million years? Or did it only start raining recently?

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 February 2007 - 02:33 PM

I will do some research re the pictures you have posted, but in the meantime, have you considered the effects of wind erosion?


But if the grand canyon is less than 5000 years old there needs to be some explanation for things found.

I will presume the entire sedimentary layers (over 1 klm of them) were all formed by the Noachian flood, yes?

The flooding of the earth did not cause the canyon it must have been the draining, yes?

Draining (causing erosion) is caused by water flowing down hill. I don’t see how a canyon (caused by erosion) can form under water.

What is the proposed YEC mechanism that caused the grand canyon to form?
  • Geode likes this

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:49 AM

I will do some research re the pictures you have posted, but in the meantime, have you considered the effects of wind erosion?


Wind does not erode things as much as what you see in the grand Canyon, unless a lot of sand is involved. Like what you would find in a desert. So do they have sand storms in the grand Canyon?

Have you ever used a sand blaster machine? I have. I have used to to take fire burns of the surface of brick on a house. I have used it to take the rusted surface off of metal. I have used it to clean some parts on cars before painting.

I can tell you from working with it, it takes a lot of air driven power, and a lot of sand, or glass bead to make it work. And how well it works also depends on the size of the abrasive material. And what you are sand blasting.

And I don't see how wind erosion can make almost perfect horizontal erosion lines all through the canyon. The wind would always have to blow in that direction, and never down into the canyon itself. Unless they have sand storms quite often, I do believe the rain erosion (vertical erosion) would out do the Horizontal. And therefore the horizontal should not even be visable, but only in areas mostly protected from rain erosion. But that's not what we see.

But if the grand canyon is less than 5000 years old there needs to be some explanation for things found.


Not a problem.

I will presume the entire sedimentary layers (over 1 klm of them) were all formed by the Noachian flood, yes?


Yes

The flooding of the earth did not cause the canyon it must have been the draining, yes?


Probably a combination of both. All the water under ground coming to the surface has to cause some erosion, correct?

Draining (causing erosion) is caused by water flowing down hill.  I don’t see how a canyon (caused by erosion) can form under water.


What is the proposed YEC mechanism that caused the grand canyon to form?

View Post


Think of the flood as a huge bath tub full of water. Because so much water came from under ground, there was a lot of abrasive material involved. One of the main drain plugs for all the water of the flood to go back under ground. Happened to be near where the Grand Canyon is located. So a very large percent of all the water for the flood had to pass through that canyon to go back into the ground.

From the highest mountain, to the deepest sea. It about 12 miles total. There are 5,280 feet in a mile. 12 x 5280 = 63360 feet. One atmosphere equal 33 feet. Divide 33 into 63360 = 1920 atmospheres. Which comes out to be 28,216 psi.

Now since the Grand Canyon is around the half way point (between the highest mountain and the deepest sea). We will divide by 2. Which equals 960 atmospheres, and 14,108 psi. So all that water, plus the weight of the pressure. Plus the mixture of sediments. Eroded and made the Grand Canyon. All because the path to where most all the water would re-enter the earth had to go through what is now called the Grand Canyon.

There is a process currently being used that uses a putty, or water abrasive type material to hone out all types of machinery. It's called extrude honing: http://www.extrudeho...pment/standard/
http://www.gethoned.com/
http://www.boneheadp...extrudehone.htm

The abrasive material, which comes in several types, is forced through an area under high pressure (just like the flood). The abrasive material can be used to either cut (harsh, medium, or light cutting) through a metal opening. Or can be used to polish it to a chrome like shine. Currently Nascar uses this to hone out the intake manifolds. They can better match the flow through out the manifold with this process. Which translates into horse power, and less fuel consumption.

I guess you could say that God was porting the Grand Canyon for us to look at. :)

#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 February 2007 - 01:59 PM

ikester7579>
And I don't see how wind erosion can make almost perfect horizontal erosion lines all through the canyon. The wind would always have to blow in that direction, and never down into the canyon itself. Unless they have sand storms quite often, I do believe the rain erosion (vertical erosion) would out do the Horizontal. And therefore the horizontal should not even be visable, but only in areas mostly protected from rain erosion. But that's not what we see.


Indeed we do not see, vertical features (when viewed from a distance), now one must ask why not, as there is certainly plenty of time for that to happen, the reason is that the sedimentary layers are not all the same, the layering is all the way through. This layering gives the lasting features of striations.

See http://www.kaibab.or...ogy/gc_geol.htm

Posted Image


ikester7579>
Think of the flood as a huge bath tub full of water.

Incidentally note that there is a layers of limestone interspaced with sandstone and shale!

Limestone, is sourced from marine organisms!
Sandstone, is the result of accumulated erosion!
Shale, is basically mud stone!


So there are 3 separate layers (interspaced) showing that the grand canyons fortunes have waxed and waned over along periods of time.

From the same link:

The sediments that covered the roots of these ancient mountains were deposited by a series of advancing and retreating ocean coast lines. As the climate of our planet warms and cools the median sea level of the planet rises and falls due to the melting and freezing of the polar caps. When the sea level rises, land areas which are close to the coast and relatively low in altitude are sometimes submerged. This was the case with the land area of the Grand Canyon and is why so many different sedimentary rock layers exist. Each of these was formed by a different period in which the ocean moved in and covered the land, stayed for a while, and then retreated again. Limestone deposits are created when the ocean moves in and slates, shales and mudstone deposits are created when the ocean moves out and the area is covered by silts washing into the retreating ocean.



So how can young earth geology account for the 3 types of rock found? What mechanism separates them into those specific orders?

Fossils
From the http://www.kaibab.or...gy/gc_layer.htm

We find not only are the layers sequenced by my multiple geological events, bu the fossils contained within them are not sorted by the rock they are found in but by the ‘evolutionary’ time frame!

Posted Image

How can young earth geology account for that specific sorting arrangement?

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 February 2007 - 09:04 PM

Indeed we do not see, vertical features (when viewed from a distance), now one must ask why not, as there is certainly plenty of time for that to happen, the reason is that the sedimentary layers are not all the same, the layering is all the way through.  This layering gives the lasting features of striations.

See http://www.kaibab.or...ogy/gc_geol.htm

Posted Image
Incidentally note that there is a layers of limestone interspaced with sandstone and shale!

Limestone, is sourced from marine organisms!
Sandstone, is the result of accumulated erosion!
Shale, is basically mud stone!


So there are 3 separate layers (interspaced) showing that the grand canyons fortunes have waxed and waned over along periods of time.

From the same link:
So how can young earth geology account for the 3 types of rock found?  What mechanism separates them into those specific orders?

Fossils
From the http://www.kaibab.or...gy/gc_layer.htm

We find not only are the layers sequenced by my multiple geological events, bu the fossils contained within them are not sorted by the rock they are found in but by the ‘evolutionary’ time frame!

Deleted second image, was to big for quote box.

How can young earth geology account for that specific sorting arrangement?

View Post


So each layer was once on top during a certain time period, and was later covered as a lot of time past, correct? So where is the soil, so plants can grow, like the top soil today? Where is this soil between the layers? So how many types of plants can grow in another type sand that is not soil, or considered top soil?

Care to take some desert sand and try to grow grass?
How about planting some trees in limestone? Bet they will grow real good.
Or plant some fruit producing plants in shale?

Ask a farmer if he could still grow all his plants if the top soil were removed.

Which brings up the question: How did the early plants of the earth grow when there was no top soil?

Don't think top soil makes a difference?

Posted Image

In the pic above you will notice no plants growing. In a desert you have plants that will grow. But none here because there is no top soil in it. And out of all the years, 5-6 million years, sill basically nothing growing.

So if this is what was on the surface of the early earth, how did the plants grow to convert CO2 to O2?

Unless you would like to show evidence of where the top soil is that is not seen in these layers?

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 February 2007 - 02:23 PM

So each layer was once on top during a certain time period, and was later covered as a lot of time past, correct? So where is the soil, so plants can grow, like the top soil today? Where is this soil between the layers? So how many types of plants can grow in another type sand that is not soil, or considered top soil?

Care to take some desert sand and try to grow grass?
How about planting some trees in limestone? Bet they will grow real good.
Or plant some fruit producing plants in shale?

Ask a farmer if he could still grow all his plants if the top soil were removed.

Which brings up the question: How did the early plants of the earth grow when there was no top soil?

Don't think top soil makes a difference?


Soil is washed away and broken up in the waters, what remains are the solids, these settle out according to their density and eventually turn to rock under pressure. You do realise that the grand canyon is a result of sedimentation processes, yes?

In the pic above you will notice no plants growing. In a desert you have plants that will grow. But none here because there is no top soil in it. And out of all the years, 5-6 million years, sill basically nothing growing.

So if this is what was on the surface of the early earth, how did the plants grow to convert CO2 to O2?

Unless you would like to show evidence of where the top soil is that is not seen in these layers?


It was underwater! (see my first link and quote box in post 4) A great proportion of soil is rocky particles, the great bulk of organic matter that is soil, gets recycled in the ocean. Mudstone or coal is about as close as you can get to fossilised soil.

Anyhow I note that you have not responded to providing a YEC explanation that explains the specific layering and sequence of fossils found in the grand canyon.

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 February 2007 - 06:42 PM

Soil is washed away and broken up in the waters, what remains are the solids, these settle out according to their density and eventually turn to rock under pressure.  You do realise that the grand canyon is a result of sedimentation processes, yes?


So some how the river eroded the soil from in between the layers, carried only the soil away, and left the layers?

It was underwater! (see my first link and quote box in post 4)  A great proportion of soil is rocky particles, the great bulk of organic matter that is soil, gets recycled in the ocean.  Mudstone or coal is about as close as you can get to fossilised soil.


Was it always underwater? You really cannot prove that.

Can you show me any geoligic column, in any area, that has soil in between the layers? Even parts that were "not" under water?


Anyhow I note that you have not responded to providing a YEC explanation that explains the specific layering and sequence of fossils found in the grand canyon.

View Post




Posted Image

Here we have a type of hydro-sorting. Where the water actually sorts the different types material by size, weight, and resistance to sink in water (buoyancy). Because the geologic column repeats itself in some layers, evolutionist really have no explaination for this.

If you take hydrologic-sorting as you see above, stack it twice.

Posted Image

You start to see how the layers came to be. Now the question of how some of the layers repeated themselves.

If you think about it, according to the word of God, the earth has actually been flooded twice.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


It does not say that God created a sphere of water. Like I have read that some creationists believe. To prove this further:

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


Appear does not mean the dry land was just created. Appear means that something was not allowing it to show, which was the water.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


And what did God call the dry land? Earth. So did God create the earth in Genesis one, or Genesis 10 (just making a point about the water sphere idea)?

So the earth solid part was created on day one. It was covered with water, and no land was visible. So all the water was gathered unto one place. Where was the one place? If we skip forward to the flood, there was water called the fountains of the deep. So the water that had to be gathered into one place, went underground.

So as this water receded, it had to mix up the sediments, right? So we have the first sediment mixing, and the first hydologic sorting take place during creation. But, it was not the same as the flood because the water that made the first flood did not have to come from the fountains of the deep. This is why the lower layers are sorted differently from the upper ones.

Lower layer = first flood (creation).
Upper layers = second flood (noah's flood).

Given all the sediment would have been added to the water quickly and settled out quickly the layering in the column does not fit, e.g. coarse sediments on top of finer ones.


The first flood would not be moving as much heavy sediment because it was just draining into the ground. So the lower layers from first flood would not have the hydrologic sorting that includes heavy sediments. Only the light to medium sediments.

The second flood would have the hydrologic sorting of heavy sediments because of the spewing of the fountains of the deep.

So from the point in layering where we see the heavy sediment being sorted, we can assume that this is where the second flood layering started, and where the first flood layering ended.

So we have two possibilities for the layering so far. Now for the third.

Because the ground is not level all around the world. When the fountains of the deep were broken up, you had water spewing up from different heigths. Which means that sediments in lower levels would settle first. Sediments spewed from higher levels would settle on top of those layers because they were higher up in the water, and their rate of desent would be constant once they reach max fall speed in water.

So this can cause mixed layering from the upper and lower levels of sediments.

Common evolutionist questions:

"Hydrological sorting" can not explain why jellyfish are near the bottom of the fossil record, while whales are near the top.


Whales are what? Air breathing mamals. So as the water rose during the flood. They had to swim near the suface to try and keep breathing. So when the flood waters rose 6-7 miles up, the whales had to swim up as well.

Jelly fish do not need to breathe air. So they got left 6 miles under the whales that had to try and stay near the surface. So while the jelly fish only had 6 miles to fall after dying. The whales had up to 12 miles to fall after dying.

Dolphins and ichthyosaurs present nearly identical hydrologic profiles and would be sorted identically. Contrary to this argument, ichthyosaurs are restricted to the Mesozoic layers while dolphins aren't found before the mid-Cenozoic.


Bouyancy differences in creatures also determine how they will hydrologically sort. Can it be shown that Dolphins had the same bouyancy as a ichthuosaurs?

And there have been out of place fossils found in the geologic column which would prove that the interpatation of the old earthers is not flawless as they would have us believe. Also finding live fossils does not help the old earthers either: http://www.yecheadqu...g/shame.24.html

A tree from the age of the dinosaurs

One such living fossil is a pine tree that, according to the traditional interpretation of the geologic column, was supposed to have been extinct for more than 100 million years. But that changed with a remarkable 1994 discovery: "David Noble was out on a holiday hike when he stepped off the beaten path and into the prehistoric age. Venturing into an isolated grove in a rain-forest preserve 125 miles from Sydney, the Parks and Wildlife Service officer suddenly found himself in a real-life 'Jurassic Park'-standing amid trees thought to have disappeared 150 million years ago .

etc...

Also, if early earth was basically a molten mass, Why is there no lava rock found in the Grand Canyon?

#8 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 February 2007 - 08:13 PM

chance>
Soil is washed away and broken up in the waters, what remains are the solids, these settle out according to their density and eventually turn to rock under pressure.  You do realise that the grand canyon is a result of sedimentation processes, yes?

ikester7579>
So some how the river eroded the soil from in between the layers, carried only the soil away, and left the layers?


Where did you get that idea from. The soil never becomes part of the rock in the first place as the soluble components dissolves. It’s underwater!


chance>
It was underwater! (see my first link and quote box in post 4)  A great proportion of soil is rocky particles, the great bulk of organic matter that is soil, gets recycled in the ocean.  Mudstone or coal is about as close as you can get to fossilised soil.

ikester7579>
Was it always underwater? You really cannot prove that.


See formation of:
limestone (marine organisms)
sandstone (sedimentation)
mudstone (sedimentation)

the wiki has a good article at http://en.wikipedia....edimentary_Rock

from the artical

A Sedimentary rock is one of the three main rock groups (along with igneous and metamorphic rocks) and is formed in four main ways:

by the deposition of the weathered remains of other rocks (known as 'clastic' sedimentary rocks);
by the accumulation and the consolidation of sediments;
by the deposition of the results of biogenic activity; and
by precipitation from solution.
Sedimentary rocks include common types such as chalk, limestone, sandstone and shale. Sedimentary rocks cover 75% of the Earth's land area. Four basic processes are involved in the formation of a clastic sedimentary rock: weathering (erosion)caused mainly by friction of waves, transportation where the sediment is carried along by a current, deposition and compaction where the sediment is squashed together to form a rock of this kind.


You argument leaves you wide open when you get around to explaining how the rock formed during a Noachian flood, yes? It too is proposed to have formed under water.


Can you show me any geoligic column, in any area, that has soil in between the layers? Even parts that were "not" under water?


First, there is no requirement to do so as sedimentation largely removes stuff that dissolves or decays (else there would be a lot more fossils than there are).

But if you are interested in geology the wiki has a good article on paleopedology (fossilised soil). Essentially you need to trap an area of soil, like under a volcanic eruption or a land slide etc, it can happen.

http://en.wikipedia....ological_record

The paleopedological record is, essentially, the fossil record of soils. The paleopedological record consists chiefly of paleosols buried by flood sediments, or preserved at geological unconformities, especially plateau escarpments or sides of river valleys. Other fossil soils occur in areas where volcanic activity has covered the ancient soils.



re

Here we have a type of hydro-sorting. Where the water actually sorts the different types material by size, weight, and resistance to sink in water (buoyancy). Because the geologic column repeats itself in some layers, evolutionist really have no explaination for this.


Who there! This is exactly the process I am talking about, so explain to me why we don’t see this pattern globally, because in a single global flood, all the heavy stuff should be at the bottom, yes? But It’s Not! why is that?

And how did the fossils get sorted not by size/buoyancy?

You start to see how the layers came to be. Now the question of how some of the layers repeated themselves.

If you think about it, according to the word of God, the earth has actually been flooded twice.


Re 2 floods!, Take another look at the grand canyon section, is that the 2 pattern model you think you should get with that model? What about the limestone?

Are you saying the grand canyon was only half created by the Noachian flood? where is the dividing line?

a common atheist question)
Given all the sediment would have been added to the water quickly and settled out quickly the layering in the column does not fit, e.g. coarse sediments on top of finer ones.


The first flood would not be moving as much heavy sediment because it was just draining into the ground. So the lower layers from first flood would not have the hydrologic sorting that includes heavy sediments. Only the light to medium sediments.

The second flood would have the hydrologic sorting of heavy sediments because of the spewing of the fountains of the deep.

So from the point in layering where we see the heavy sediment being sorted, we can assume that this is where the second flood layering started, and where the first flood layering ended.

So we have two possibilities for the layering so far. Now for the third.

Because the ground is not level all around the world. When the fountains of the deep were broken up, you had water spewing up from different heigths. Which means that sediments in lower levels would settle first. Sediments spewed from higher levels would settle on top of those layers because they were higher up in the water, and their rate of desent would be constant once they reach max fall speed in water.

So this can cause mixed layering from the upper and lower levels of sediments.


The only factor that sorts is the speed of the water and the buoyancy of the particulate matter, no matter what the speed of water you will always get the heavy (relative) stuff on the bottom. So in a flood, a big flood, the sediments will sort out according to there buoyancy and terminal velocity, sorry ikester7579 but there is just no way you can get around this fact. The geological column does not look like the simplistic hydrological pictures you posted, if you believe it does, point out those section on the picture I posted. Don’t forget the limestone.

Re- Waters from the deep – such impressive geological event should leave a lasting visual impression on the land, where are they?

Common evolutionist questions:


"Hydrological sorting" can not explain why jellyfish are near the bottom of the fossil record, while whales are near the top.


Whales are what? Air breathing mamals. So as the water rose during the flood. They had to swim near the suface to try and keep breathing. So when the flood waters rose 6-7 miles up, the whales had to swim up as well.

Jelly fish do not need to breathe air. So they got left 6 miles under the whales that had to try and stay near the surface. So while the jelly fish only had 6 miles to fall after dying. The whales had up to 12 miles to fall after dying.


Why would whales drown in an Noachian flood in the first place? That little inconvenience aside, please explain the phenomena using land base animals.

So you can’t actually explain why whales dolphins ichthyosaurs are never found in the same strata and have to fall back on Can it be shown that Dolphins had the same buoyancy as a ichthyosaurs . :)

How do you explain land animals then?






Re Out of place fossils, sorry ikester7579, but your link tries to hide the fact of what an out of place fossil actually is.

Here is an exercise in reviewing out of place fossils, and what can be reasonable meant when one is referring to that term.

In the list below is a simplified model of the strata. The “what happened” shows the things to be expected in that time period. (Youngest on the top).

Millions of years ago - Time period - What happened
0.01 - Holocene - Modern civilisation
1.8 - Quaternary Pleistocene - Ice age, modern humans
5 - Pliocene - First upright ape
23 - Miocene - First ape
36 - Oligocene - Grasslands spread, many grazing animals
57 - Eocene - First horse, first whales
65 - Palaeocene - Giant land birds
65 - Tertiary - Rise of the mammals Dinosaurs go extinct as 65mya
136 - Cretaceous - First flowering plants.
190 - Jurassic - Dinosaurs dominate, first birds.
225 - Triassic - First dinosaurs, First mammals, Mammal like reptiles extinct
280 - Permian - Mammal like reptiles dominate. Major extinction of marine creatures
345 - Carboniferous - Great forests, Amphibians, first reptiles
395 - Devonian - First bony fish, vertebrates on land
430 - Silurian - First fish with jaws, first land animals (invertebrates)
500 - Ordovician - First jawless fish, first land based plants
570 - Cambrian- Oldest fossil animal and plants
3500 - Pre-Cambrian - Oldest known single cell organisms
4500 - Pre-Cambrian - Formation of Earth

What can be predicted using evolution as a model:

A. There is no mechanism preventing a life form in a lower layer, persisting in an upwards direction. Things that do stop such situations however are, ‘extinction events’ ‘environment change’ etc.
B. It is impossible for some life form in upper layer from appearing in a lower layer. To explain - if we are certain that whales evolved in the Eocene, evolution predicts you wont find a whale in the Palaeocene or lower. This is not the same as finding an earlier example of a whale or whale precursor, in the late Palaeocene (this is not out of place rather it is range extension). A whale in the Palaeocene represents something in the order of 1 to 5 Mya, and is in no way comparable to the enormous stretch of time that an out of place fossil could exist in (if evolution was false) namely the preceding 4435 million years!

Now consider the mind numbing number of choices one could make to test the ToE. Some examples of what would be out of place:

A. Practically any ‘modern’ big mammal, Palaeocene or lower.
B. Any Dinosaur, Permian or lower.
C. Any mammal or dinosaur, Carboniferous or lower.
D. Any tetrapod (land animal), Silurian or lower.
E. Any Fish or land animal, Cambrian or lower.
F. Any plant, any animal (not single cell) Pre-Cambrian or lower.

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 February 2007 - 09:56 PM

I can see that this has turned into a I'm always right (evolution) you are wrong (creation) debate.

I knew when I answered your question about how the flood laid out the layers we see. That instead of even giving it some thought, you would hone in to make a mockery out of it by making it more of a personal thing, so that you could make it to where you could ignore evidence and problems I presented. And not have to address them.

Added: Your diversion answers to dodge the soil question, and your refusal to answer it. But to come up with: soil don't mix with rock (it shows you just wanted me to do a big long explanation). If dino tissue with blood can be found, intact soil between layers can be found intact as well.

Then your argument about the sorting. You again ignored what I said. About water spewing up from different heights (which would put sediments up higher in some section, while lower in others).

etc...

As far as answering the rest of your questions, like you I will act dumb. I think in the next debate I will make sure I use the same tactic. And make you work extra hard to give the answers. And then still act as if I don't understand, or use dodge excuses.

But I'm used to it (a usual tactic). But I really have nothing more to say because this has become a wasted debate for me. I'm not going to keep repeating myself on questions I already answered. If you can't see it by now, I can't help you.

If anyone else would like to take up where I left off, have at it. Other wise I will close the thread.

One more thing. Do the fossils date the layers, or do the layers date the fossils?

#10 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 21 February 2007 - 06:01 AM

I think being resident in the UK makes belief in a flood 4k years ago very difficult. Our history and geology is really compact. I can go to the spot where the glaciers of the last ice age stopped on their southerly march and see the vast gouges that they made in the landscape and then I can go a few miles south and see a totally volcanic landscape, untouched by the ravages of the ice. And then we can go east to the area where chalk is the predominant rock. Chalk is the remains of trillions of tiny creatures who sank to the bottom of the ocean when they died. If all of the micro-organisms in the world at the time of the flood had come here to die, I suppose it's conceivable there would have been enough to create all of this chalk, but then, what of all the rest of the world's chalk deposits? And its limestone? And why did they die anyway?

On top of the chalk are monuments, ancient in human terms. The most famous is Stonehenge. Its construction started 5000 years ago. The bluestones that were used came from 250km away in the Preseli hills in Wales. A buch of enthusiats tried to emulate this feat a few years back. Eventually they managed to haul the rock a few miles to the coast of Wales and onto a barge. It sank. We've found a few of the original rocks in the stretch of sea over which the original builders had to travel. It's reckoned that it took 2000 years to build the entire monument (which was in 2 phases). There are 1000 year old farmhouses, still inhabited, that were built with rocks from Stonehenge, scavenged long after the monument was abandoned. Stonehenge was ancient when the celts arrived, let alone the Romans.

We simply don't have enough room in our history for only 4000 years since a flood that wiped out almost all life.

p.s. regarding soil layers: when you've leached out all of the nutients from soil, you end up with sand or clay which both form rocks. Soil itself is usually too dynamic to form a later in the geological column. There are only certain circumstances where it would (such as it was swiftly covered by water or maybe sand).

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 February 2007 - 02:03 PM

I can see that this has turned into a I'm always right (evolution) you are wrong (creation) debate.

I knew when I answered your question about how the flood laid out the layers we see. That instead of even giving it some thought, you would hone in to make a mockery out of it by making it more of a personal thing, so that you could make it to where you could ignore evidence and problems I presented. And not have to address them.


If you don’t want to present a competing theory to how the grand canyon formed, that’s fine with me, I can stick to defending the scientific status quo.


Added: Your diversion answers to dodge the soil question, and your refusal to answer it. But to come up with: soil don't mix with rock (it shows you just wanted me to do a big long explanation). If dino tissue with blood can be found, intact soil between layers can be found intact as well.


I have explained the ‘soil problem’ as best as I can. I explained (and provided links) regarding how sedimentary rock forms, and how the soil gets washed away, and/or separated from the particulate matter. In addition I did provided evidence of fossilised soil and how it can be preserved under the right conditions (non of which appear to be met in the grand canyon).

What you have not done in return is explain why you think soil should be present in sedimentary rock. What process and conditions do you think happened (old earth or young earth) to lead you to the conclusion that soils must be present?



Then your argument about the sorting. You again ignored what I said. About water spewing up from different heights (which would put sediments up higher in some section, while lower in others).

etc...


No I didn’t, I’m saying your explanation (re the jars [single and double layers]) does not reflect what is found in the grand canyon. My challenge to you is to show us how the grand canyon resembles the 2 jars pictures.

If your going to use science as your proof one must eventually attempt to see if the ‘theory’ matches the ‘facts! In this case your theory is the pictures of the 2 sedimentation jars and the facts are the grand canyon. If your going to be scientific, I ask you what do you intend to do with your theory if it does not explain the facts?


As far as answering the rest of your questions, like you I will act dumb. I think in the next debate I will make sure I use the same tactic. And make you work extra hard to give the answers. And then still act as if I don't understand, or use dodge excuses.

But I'm used to it (a usual tactic). But I really have nothing more to say because this has become a wasted debate for me. I'm not going to keep repeating myself on questions I already answered. If you can't see it by now, I can't help you.

If anyone else would like to take up where I left off, have at it. Other wise I will close the thread.

One more thing. Do the fossils date the layers, or do the layers date the fossils?


I think you are taking this way to personal. Look, if your going to present hard science as your evidence, you should expect hard and rigorous criticism, that is the nature of science and peer review.

Nobody expects anyone to get everything right, so I ask you, “if your theory is in error (and it can be show to be in error) would you prefer to be told that”, or “would you prefer to continue to hold fast to an erroneous theory”?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users