A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[otseng]

The Grand Canyon was formed by all of the stratas forming first. And according to SG, the Colorado river then eroded the stratas to form the Grand Canyon. The topmost layer, Kaibab Limestone, is around 250 million years old. And then around 17 million years ago, the Colorado River formed.

Prior to the Colorado river, the entire area was flat solid rock. The Colorado river would've had to had erode through the lithified rocks. There are many problems with this. But I want to concentrate on one problem. Wouldn't have all this erosion of solid rock have produced boulders?

Here is an aerial view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grand ... tantin.jpg

The eroded area is much larger than the Colorado River. Erosion doesn't follow the Colorado River either. But there are many "inlets" that the river does not flow into. The width of the Canyon is also much wider than the river. The walls of the Canyon must've formed by rocks falling off the sides as the river eroded downward into the lower stratas. Yet, these rocks/boulders are remarkable absent. Only a small amount exists. For the amount of rock that was eroded, shouldn't there be more evidence of eroded rocks by boulders scattered everywhere?

Some more images of scarcity of boulders:


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... _cloud.jpg


http://wikitravel.org/en/Image:Grand_Ca ... o_Peak.JPG

[McCulloch]

They teach the flood in schools?

Only private religious ones. Yet the religious lobby is strong enough in the USA to stifle attempts to debunk creationism in the education system.

The State Board of Education [in Texas] on Friday [March, 2009] passed science curriculum standards that members described as a compromise between those who are critical of teaching evolutionary theories without scrutiny and those who feared attacks on evolution would lead to the teaching of creationism in Texas schoolsThe new standards remove current requirements that students be taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. Instead, teachers will be required to have students scrutinize "all sides" of the theories.

The Discovery Institute, which encourages teaching that the universe is the product of an intelligent designer, called the vote "a huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution."

[Scotracer]

The Grand Canyon was formed by all of the stratas forming first. And according to SG, the Colorado river then eroded the stratas to form the Grand Canyon. The topmost layer, Kaibab Limestone, is around 250 million years old. And then around 17 million years ago, the Colorado River formed.

Prior to the Colorado river, the entire area was flat solid rock. The Colorado river would've had to had erode through the lithified rocks. There are many problems with this. But I want to concentrate on one problem. Wouldn't have all this erosion of solid rock have produced boulders?

Here is an aerial view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grand ... tantin.jpg

The eroded area is much larger than the Colorado River. Erosion doesn't follow the Colorado River either. But there are many "inlets" that the river does not flow into. The width of the Canyon is also much wider than the river. The walls of the Canyon must've formed by rocks falling off the sides as the river eroded downward into the lower stratas. Yet, these rocks/boulders are remarkable absent. Only a small amount exists. For the amount of rock that was eroded, shouldn't there be more evidence of eroded rocks by boulders scattered everywhere?

Some more images of scarcity of boulders:


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... _cloud.jpg


http://wikitravel.org/en/Image:Grand_Ca ... o_Peak.JPG

The 3 major river forming mechanisms are Erosion, Transportation and Deposition. It shouldn't be beyond reason to assume they were transported somewhere else.

[otseng]

The 3 major river forming mechanisms are Erosion, Transportation and Deposition. It shouldn't be beyond reason to assume they were transported somewhere else.

Where were they all transported to?
Do we find a significant amount of boulders there?
Also, there are many areas that the Colorado river did not even reach. How did all those boulders get transported?

[McCulloch]

Wouldn't have all this erosion of solid rock have produced boulders?

Individual plateaus reduce in size as blocks of rock fall from the cliffs, either pried loose by frost-wedging or by the removal of the underlying shale support by erosion. It would seem that there should be an abundance of fallen blocks-taluses perhaps-along the base of the cliffs. Talus deposits, however, are essentially nonexistent and even scattered boulders are rare. The scarcity of boulders prompted the assumption that active scarp retreat had ceased, perhaps when there was a change in climate. This assumption appears to be invalid. Schum and Chorley (1964) found that (1) many sandstone boulders essentially disintegrate by impact and (2) others weather rapidly once they are partially buried in material that tends to hold moisture. Therefore, scarp retreat continues today although the boulders disappear about as rapidly as they are replaced by others falling from the cliff above.

EUGENE P. KIVER, PhD, is a professor of geology at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, Washington. Dr. Kiver received his doctorate in geology from the University of Wyoming. He is coauthor of the Fourth Edition of this book, and prepared the revisions of this Fifth Edition.

DAVID V. HARRIS, PhD (deceased), was a professor of geology at Colorado State University from 1946 until 1976. He was the author of the first three editions of this book, and coauthor of the Fourth Edition, then titled Geologic Story of National Parks and Monuments.

Perhaps if you looked to geologists for your answers rather than an open internet forum, you would be less confused.

[Goat]

The 3 major river forming mechanisms are Erosion, Transportation and Deposition. It shouldn't be beyond reason to assume they were transported somewhere else.

Where were they all transported to?
Do we find a significant amount of boulders there?
Also, there are many areas that the Colorado river did not even reach. How did all those boulders get transported?

The pacific ocean.. and since there has been slipage of where the river exits over time, we see a pattern of where the soil was deposited over time.

[nygreenguy]

Wouldn't have all this erosion of solid rock have produced boulders?

Individual plateaus reduce in size as blocks of rock fall from the cliffs, either pried loose by frost-wedging or by the removal of the underlying shale support by erosion. It would seem that there should be an abundance of fallen blocks-taluses perhaps-along the base of the cliffs. Talus deposits, however, are essentially nonexistent and even scattered boulders are rare. The scarcity of boulders prompted the assumption that active scarp retreat had ceased, perhaps when there was a change in climate. This assumption appears to be invalid. Schum and Chorley (1964) found that (1) many sandstone boulders essentially disintegrate by impact and (2) others weather rapidly once they are partially buried in material that tends to hold moisture. Therefore, scarp retreat continues today although the boulders disappear about as rapidly as they are replaced by others falling from the cliff above.

EUGENE P. KIVER, PhD, is a professor of geology at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, Washington. Dr. Kiver received his doctorate in geology from the University of Wyoming. He is coauthor of the Fourth Edition of this book, and prepared the revisions of this Fifth Edition.

DAVID V. HARRIS, PhD (deceased), was a professor of geology at Colorado State University from 1946 until 1976. He was the author of the first three editions of this book, and coauthor of the Fourth Edition, then titled Geologic Story of National Parks and Monuments.

Perhaps if you looked to geologists for your answers rather than an open internet forum, you would be less confused.

This is why I dont comment on geology.

This is also why Id like to switch to my expertise, which is ecology/biology.

Lets talk about that and I can give some proper responses.

[micatala]

Wouldn't have all this erosion of solid rock have produced boulders?

Individual plateaus reduce in size as blocks of rock fall from the cliffs, either pried loose by frost-wedging or by the removal of the underlying shale support by erosion. It would seem that there should be an abundance of fallen blocks-taluses perhaps-along the base of the cliffs. Talus deposits, however, are essentially nonexistent and even scattered boulders are rare. The scarcity of boulders prompted the assumption that active scarp retreat had ceased, perhaps when there was a change in climate. This assumption appears to be invalid. Schum and Chorley (1964) found that (1) many sandstone boulders essentially disintegrate by impact and (2) others weather rapidly once they are partially buried in material that tends to hold moisture. Therefore, scarp retreat continues today although the boulders disappear about as rapidly as they are replaced by others falling from the cliff above.

EUGENE P. KIVER, PhD, is a professor of geology at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, Washington. Dr. Kiver received his doctorate in geology from the University of Wyoming. He is coauthor of the Fourth Edition of this book, and prepared the revisions of this Fifth Edition.

DAVID V. HARRIS, PhD (deceased), was a professor of geology at Colorado State University from 1946 until 1976. He was the author of the first three editions of this book, and coauthor of the Fourth Edition, then titled Geologic Story of National Parks and Monuments.

Perhaps if you looked to geologists for your answers rather than an open internet forum, you would be less confused.

If you want to see boulders, one good place is northern Minnesota and across the border into Canada. There, we find igneous rocks, granite etc., close to the surface (the Canadian shield) and these types of rocks make good boulders (that don't disintegrate as easily when they fall off cliffs). The Boundaray Waters Canoe Area has at least one, and I think two, lakes that are called Boulder Lake.

[otseng]

(1) many sandstone boulders essentially disintegrate by impact and (2) others weather rapidly once they are partially buried in material that tends to hold moisture.

Regarding (1), I grant that sandstone boulders break apart more easily than other types of rocks. However, even if a falling sandstone boulder could "disintegrate on impact", this would only explain sandstone.

Some points about (2). If a boulder fell off a cliff, where would all that material come from to bury it? And how would it hold moisture? How does moisture alone erode rocks? Also, to have formed the Grand Canyon, a lot of boulders would've fallen off. So it should have left a lot of buried/eroded rock.

you would be less confused.

Umm, stating "you would be less confused" would be considered a personal comment.

[micatala]

(1) many sandstone boulders essentially disintegrate by impact and (2) others weather rapidly once they are partially buried in material that tends to hold moisture.

Regarding (1), I grant that sandstone boulders break apart more easily than other types of rocks. However, even if a falling sandstone boulder could "disintegrate on impact", this would only explain sandstone.

Some points about (2). If a boulder fell off a cliff, where would all that material come from to bury it? And how would it hold moisture? How does moisture alone erode rocks? Also, to have formed the Grand Canyon, a lot of boulders would've fallen off. So it should have left a lot of buried/eroded rock.

you would be less confused.

Umm, stating "you would be less confused" would be considered a personal comment.

There is very little igneous rock in the grand canyon. A lot of it IS sandstone. There is also shale and limestone. We could look at what happens to those types of rocks as well if they fall off cliffs.