Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

More "non-existent" YEC evidence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More "non-existent" YEC evidence

    As most of you know, a never-ending, tiresome claim is that "there is no evidence for a young Earth". I've repeatedly stated that such a claim demonstrates one of two things: (1) ignorance or (2) dishonesty - there can be no third alternative. But discussing this again is not the goal here.

    This thread is primarily to present some more of this "non-existent" evidence, not to start a debate on the matter. It is most worthwhile - as an indicator of intellectually honesty - to note the ending of the article. Here's that ending with my highlights:

    "As Creationists, we do not have all the answers. In fact, there are many unanswered questions when it comes to the formation of the Grand Canyon. For example, exactly when the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted during the formation of the Grand Canyon is uncertain. Another question relates to the erosional evidence associated with the breaching of the natural dams. It is unclear as to why the waters would have eroded the course they appear to have taken, and why the remaining landscape has some of the features shown today. Also, unknown is what effect the increased rainfall in the region had on carving the canyon.

    Some Creationists attribute the formation of the canyon almost solely to the breaching of the dams, while others see the receding of the Flood waters to be the main carving mechanism. It is suggested here that combining the strengths of both models best explains the evidence and what we see in the Grand Canyon today.

    These issues, however, do not weaken the evidence for the catastrophic carving of the Grand Canyon and its relationship to the Flood. It only shows there is still research to be done in order to better understand the canyon’s formation.

    Conclusion

    Although we cannot be certain of the sequence and timing of these events, the evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly, as were the layers into which it is carved. Thus, rather than slow and gradual erosion by the Colorado River over eons of time, the Grand Canyon was carved rapidly by a lot of water in a little bit of time! The reason the Colorado River exists today is because the Grand Canyon was eroded first, soon after the end of the Genesis Flood."


    https://answersingenesis.org/geology...d-canyon-form/

    Lots of evidence contained in the article ... more of that nasty "non-existent" evidence.

    Jorge

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    As most of you know, a never-ending, tiresome claim is that "there is no evidence for a young Earth". I've repeatedly stated that such a claim demonstrates one of two things: (1) ignorance or (2) dishonesty - there can be no third alternative. But discussing this again is not the goal here.

    This thread is primarily to present some more of this "non-existent" evidence, not to start a debate on the matter. It is most worthwhile - as an indicator of intellectually honesty - to note the ending of the article. Here's that ending with my highlights:

    "As Creationists, we do not have all the answers. In fact, there are many unanswered questions when it comes to the formation of the Grand Canyon. For example, exactly when the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted during the formation of the Grand Canyon is uncertain. Another question relates to the erosional evidence associated with the breaching of the natural dams. It is unclear as to why the waters would have eroded the course they appear to have taken, and why the remaining landscape has some of the features shown today. Also, unknown is what effect the increased rainfall in the region had on carving the canyon.

    Some Creationists attribute the formation of the canyon almost solely to the breaching of the dams, while others see the receding of the Flood waters to be the main carving mechanism. It is suggested here that combining the strengths of both models best explains the evidence and what we see in the Grand Canyon today.

    These issues, however, do not weaken the evidence for the catastrophic carving of the Grand Canyon and its relationship to the Flood. It only shows there is still research to be done in order to better understand the canyon’s formation.

    Conclusion

    Although we cannot be certain of the sequence and timing of these events, the evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly, as were the layers into which it is carved. Thus, rather than slow and gradual erosion by the Colorado River over eons of time, the Grand Canyon was carved rapidly by a lot of water in a little bit of time! The reason the Colorado River exists today is because the Grand Canyon was eroded first, soon after the end of the Genesis Flood."


    https://answersingenesis.org/geology...d-canyon-form/

    Lots of evidence contained in the article ... more of that nasty "non-existent" evidence.

    Jorge
    Jorge, according to Campus Decorum rules argument via weblink is not allowed. Most of that link is just the same recycled crap / unsupported assertions Snelling and AIG have been pushing for decades anyway.

    If you have some evidence that establishes an age of the Earth that you're willing to defend then present it. Otherwise go cluck us a river.

    I'll remind you too since you're so scientifically inept that the age of the Grand Canyon does not establish the age of the Earth itself. That's as stupid as the time you tried to use the "the oldest writing is only 5000 year old" to show the Earth was young.
    Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 06-07-2014, 07:00 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      It boggles my mind how YECs can use the Grand Canyon as evidence to support their view.

      There are two huge issues that Ye Greate Fludde can't explain -- these are generalities that become even more inexplicable with details.

      1) There are many, many EPISODES involved in the formation of the GC. Each rock formation (as well as individual bedding planes) need time to lithify before the next formation could be laid down. Also, the Great Unconformity is inexplicable by YE Fludde.

      2) The canyon is an incised meander. Meanders form in the mature floodplain with slow flowing stream. Incising a meander into hard rock requires a SLOW uplift else the stream will be "rejuvenated" a resume a straighter shape.

      A third obvious issue is where the heck did over a one mile thickness of sediment come from? Related to this, as any freshman geology student knows, clastic sediment first has to be WEATHERED out of parent rock before it can be ERODED. A flood, no matter how tumultuous will NOT erode that much sediment off of solid rock! And limestone, a chemical sediment forms SLOWLY in shallow marine facies. Limestone is NOT a flood deposit!!!

      The whole idea of the GC forming in a few years is risible. But it won't stop the YEC "science" charlatans from pushing it to ignorant credulous laymen.

      K54

      Comment


      • #4
        I think when looking at geological pictures, excluding meaningless varves; it rules out slow tectonics, and a lot YEC don't take the flood tectonics seriously; believing tectonics got started during the flood. But what does Jorge think?
        Last edited by Omniskeptical; 06-07-2014, 07:37 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
          I think when looking at geological pictures, excluding meaningless varves; it rules out slow tectonics, and a lot YEC don't take the flood tectonics seriously; believing tectonics got started during the flood. But what does Jorge think?
          Huh? Flood tectonics? Slow tectonics?

          What on "Earth" are you babbling about?

          K54

          P.S. Meaningless varves??? Who mentioned varves?
          Last edited by klaus54; 06-07-2014, 07:42 PM. Reason: P.S.

          Comment


          • #6
            Tectonics is concerned with the processes which control the structure and properties of the Earth's crust, and its evolution through time.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              It boggles my mind how YECs can use the Grand Canyon as evidence to support their view.

              There are two huge issues that Ye Greate Fludde can't explain -- these are generalities that become even more inexplicable with details.

              1) There are many, many EPISODES involved in the formation of the GC. Each rock formation (as well as individual bedding planes) need time to lithify before the next formation could be laid down. Also, the Great Unconformity is inexplicable by YE Fludde.

              2) The canyon is an incised meander. Meanders form in the mature floodplain with slow flowing stream. Incising a meander into hard rock requires a SLOW uplift else the stream will be "rejuvenated" a resume a straighter shape.

              A third obvious issue is where the heck did over a one mile thickness of sediment come from? Related to this, as any freshman geology student knows, clastic sediment first has to be WEATHERED out of parent rock before it can be ERODED. A flood, no matter how tumultuous will NOT erode that much sediment off of solid rock! And limestone, a chemical sediment forms SLOWLY in shallow marine facies. Limestone is NOT a flood deposit!!!

              The whole idea of the GC forming in a few years is risible. But it won't stop the YEC "science" charlatans from pushing it to ignorant credulous laymen.

              K54
              I agree the young earth model of the worldwide flood doesn't work, however, the old earth model of the worldwide flood has nothing disproving it so far.
              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

              -Thomas Aquinas

              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

              -Hernando Cortez

              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                Tectonics is concerned with the processes which control the structure and properties of the Earth's crust, and its evolution through time.
                Yeah, I know. My Bachelors degree is in geology.

                K54

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                  I agree the young earth model of the worldwide flood doesn't work, however, the old earth model of the worldwide flood has nothing disproving it so far.
                  What is the old earth flood model?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                    I agree the young earth model of the worldwide flood doesn't work, however, the old earth model of the worldwide flood has nothing disproving it so far.
                    Not sure what you mean by "old earth model of the worldwide flood". If you need to interpret the Flood story as history, then it could refer to a regional flood. The Old Testament Hebrew had no word or even concept of a planet. Eretz (ארץ) was what was flooded in the Noah story. That's the same word used for "land" or "nation" in the story of Abram.

                    I don't think God meant for Abram to build a spaceship.

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Here's a diagram showing a cross-section of the Grand Canyon showing the stratigraphy and the position of the Colorado River. Note that the river has cut into "hard" rock (igneous and metamorphic -- not sedimentary). Also note the various types of sedimentary rock in the successive formations and keep in the mind the law of superposition and the various environments where different types of sedimentary rocks form. Limestone formations occur in several places up the column. Limestone is NOT a flood deposit.

                      (Not seen here) but the shale strata are eroded and slumped more than the sandstone. Clay has a steeper angle of repose than sand, ergo if these were laid down by the Fludde, one would expect the opposite situation (slumped sandstone and conglomerate, more vertical shale.)

                      How dare these charlatans at AiG pass this off to the naive as evidence of an Earth < 10Ka???!!

                      K54



                      http://www.siskiyous.edu/class/geol1...ndcynstrat.gif
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by klaus54; 06-08-2014, 01:19 AM. Reason: added diagram

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here's something interesting. According to Jorge's AIG source, all the strata from the Tapeats sandstone and above were laid by Da FLUD



                        That means all the strata in the entire 'grand staircase' of the Colorado Plateau must be FLUD laid



                        That means all the canyons in the Colodaro Plateau must be post-FLUD, including Bryce Canyon, Zion Canyon, and my favorite Goosenecks State Park in Utah.



                        The Goosenecks, where the San Juan river has carved a series of 1000' deep 180 deg. switchbacks. The river flows through more than 6 miles of curves over only 1.5 miles of straight line distance.

                        Couldn't have been carved when the material was soft mud because the walls would slump. Couldn't have been carved by fast flowing water because then we'd see straight channels like the Scablands, not switchback meanders.

                        Jorge won't touch this with a 10' pole. I'll bet he's too cowardly to even acknowledged it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          Here's something interesting. According to Jorge's AIG source, all the strata from the Tapeats sandstone and above were laid by Da FLUD



                          That means all the strata in the entire 'grand staircase' of the Colorado Plateau must be FLUD laid



                          That means all the canyons in the Colodaro Plateau must be post-FLUD, including Bryce Canyon, Zion Canyon, and my favorite Goosenecks State Park in Utah.



                          The Goosenecks, where the San Juan river has carved a series of 1000' deep 180 deg. switchbacks. The river flows through more than 6 miles of curves over only 1.5 miles of straight line distance.

                          Couldn't have been carved when the material was soft mud because the walls would slump. Couldn't have been carved by fast flowing water because then we'd see straight channels like the Scablands, not switchback meanders.

                          Jorge won't touch this with a 10' pole. I'll bet he's too cowardly to even acknowledged it.
                          I mentioned some of that on another thread...
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          An invalid comparison to the Grand Canyon for numerous reasons, principally the sediments that the water carved through on Mt. St. Helen's was nothing but unconsolidated volcanic ash which is nothing even remotely similar to having to carve through solid rock including granite and basalt. If you don't believe it dump a large pile of ash onto the ground and spray a stream of water from a hose at it and see how fast you can cut through it. Next place a slab of granite (or even the much softer limestone or sandstone) on the ground and spray a stream of water at it from the same hose. Get back to me when you've carved through it

                          Some YEC "flood geologists" claim that the Grand Canyon formations were originally mud and not rock when the flood carved through it, but the ridiculousness of this argument is exposed by the fact that carving through mud or other soft material will cause the walls to slope (like those seen at the Mt. St. Helen's canyon which slope 45 degrees) rather than leave the near vertical walls seen along the Grand Canyon. Such vertical walls can only be accomplished when you cut through solid stone not soft unconsolidated mud.

                          The geology of the region clearly reveals that what would later become the Grand Canyon formations were originally deposited near a flat coastal marine environment periodically inundated by tropical seas over a space of many millions of years. Then, this region, later known as the Colorado Plateau, began to be uplifted (and slightly tilted) at the end of the Paleozoic era (roughly 250 mya). During this period the already existing meandering river systems[1] slowly started to cut down into the rock, keeping pace with the uplift over the ensuing millions of years.





                          1. And a raging flood spreading over a level plain will also not create rivers with multiple tributaries and form meanders with numerous U turns like those seen below.


                          Instead of carving canyons that are a mile deep such a raging flood will actually create formations like those seen in the Channeled Scablands that cover much of the state of Washington

                          ...and received the patented Jorgian response -- I must be either "ignorant or dishonest."
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          I won't spend my time on something that scientists in the field have already spent tens of thousands of manhours answering. If you go to the ICR, AiG and CMI websites you will find many hundreds of articles responding to the points you bring up above. That's why I always write that for people to say some of the things that they do, they must be (1) ignorant (of what has been investigated and reported on the matter) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., they know about these findings but either pretend that it does not exist or flat-out lie about it) -- no third option exists. So which is it for you, R06 - ignorant or dishonest?

                          Jorge

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            Not sure what you mean by "old earth model of the worldwide flood". If you need to interpret the Flood story as history, then it could refer to a regional flood. The Old Testament Hebrew had no word or even concept of a planet. Eretz (ארץ) was what was flooded in the Noah story. That's the same word used for "land" or "nation" in the story of Abram.

                            I don't think God meant for Abram to build a spaceship.

                            K54
                            The Old Earth model is that God 'did' flood the world at one point in ancient history, only the world wasn't created ten thousand years ago. I thought that would have been obvious.
                            Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                            -Thomas Aquinas

                            I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                            -Hernando Cortez

                            What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                            -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                              The Old Earth model is that God 'did' flood the world at one point in ancient history, only the world wasn't created ten thousand years ago. I thought that would have been obvious.
                              When did this supposedly happen? We were hoping for some details.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              4 responses
                              36 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              58 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              17 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X