I read it over again. I did not bail on anything. I refuse to give an answer to a random accusation floating around in your head. So…either produce something…or let it lie. Short answer: Your accusations are false.
I see you are doing your best to make your case to forum participants.
This is quite helpful; thanks, John.
From this thread you made a particular cogent argument:
[To r_speir] It’s not your rule, and I never said it was. So you now agree that an unconformity with fossils both above and below it must, in your model, have formed during the Flood. How would that work? Remember that the lower sediments must be deposited, then lithified, then tilted, then eroded, and the more sediments must be deposited on that erosional surface, all within the period of active Flood action, 40 days. (The remainder of the Flood year is a slow subsidence of the waters.) By what mechanism is that credible?
I find this logic compelling. In addition, I did not see you make a substantive response, @r_speir.(*) I am willing to consider whatever case you would like to offer, of course.
Best,
Chris
(*) And I did read the entire thread carefully, so there’s no reason to cast any more insinuations on my character.
4 Likes
Not so. Give me an example like I said. These will be shallow layers and some will doubtless be laid down years before the flood. {Ahh, you know, things did tend to die even before the flood}. Example please
How do you determine which fossil bearing sediments were from before the flood, during the flood, or after the flood? What methods do you use?
2 Likes
If the flood was only a thousand years after the creation of life, how could all those fossiliferous sediments below unconformities have been eroded, deposited, lithified, and tilted in such a short time?
Is there a way to tell which rocks came before the flood? I thought all the fossils were supposed to come from the flood. While it’s true that a moving claim is harder to refute, it also makes you look less intellectually respectable.
2 Likes
it is aDMITTED to being vigoursly debated on this point because people are smarter today and evidence shows other options. i would say its impossible for two or more explanations to be shown by evidence in the field. sO its either someone is doing a poor job or the evidence is very difficult to figure out.
Nothing was observed or is happening today. Options are the only ceiling on how it happened.
It was only created about 4000 years ago within a day or so i say.
there is nothing in the rocks to say when they were knocked about. only that you can see it was not from slow processes. Many clues.
Thats right. there are a few I understand, this is why I see these canyons as very tiny affairs and thus post flood events.
I don’t have to do this. All I have to do is show that your interpretation of the data is not the only viable one. And I have done that in the other thread. I do not care to pursue it any further here or rehash the entire argument.
Answer: because you do not understand geologic processes like you think you do. All of this that you mention is more than possible in a thousand years’ time.
That wasn’t an answer, just an assertion. When I say “How could that happen”, it’s not an answer to say “It could happen”. How is it possible for thousands of feet of erosion and deposition to happen in a thousand years? I realize you think that thousands of feet of erosion and deposition can happen in a single year, but at least that’s with some kind of extreme conditions, i.e. a worldwide flood. No matter how inadequate, that’s at least something. But before the flood you have nothing.
5 Likes
But you haven’t shown it. All you’ve done is claim “Da FLOOD did it!!” and scampered off when asked for your supporting evidence. Meanwhile the examples of angular unconformities with fossils in both halves of the strata demonstrate life has been on the planet for at least 480 MYA. 
Here’s the example from evograd with Ordovician aged fossils on the bottom and Silurian aged fossils on top.
3 Likes
How is this deformed trilobite fossil possible in a gentle Flood or 1000 years’ time?
Deformed fossils . Occasionally rocks containing fossils are later carried deep underground by plate tectonics where they are subjected to tremendous heat and pressure which makes the rocks pliable. Fossils in such rocks may then become deformed and distorted without fracturing. This is another geologic process which takes millions of years after the fossil formation which itself took millions of years.
4 Likes
Good photo of deformed trilobite. Note that fossils like this are the result of recrystalization and lithification of solid material, not soft sediment.
Orientation and internal structure of deformed solid minerals are also very useful in analyzing the structural history of rock bodies. How does a flood deform solid quartz crystals?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040195173900164
BC
3 Likes
If you don’t have a method for determining which sediments are pre-flood, syn-flood, or post-flood then you don’t have a viable interpretation. If there is no potential observations that could ever falsify your model, then it isn’t viable.
When it comes down to it, you aren’t interpreting the data. You are simply repeating your beliefs without caring what the evidence is.
1 Like
Admitted by whom, and where?
So how did you determine that they were laid down recently in a global flood?
I say that on a probability curve when there is discovered a mechanism for a natural thing THEN its very unlikely another mechanism brings a convergence in form. In this case the better rapid formation concepts make irrelevant the previous old timeline concepts which were never proven. Obviously they couldn’t but that reveals they were speculation.
Please post this “probability curve” you are talking about.
Why wouldn’t slow formation of a canyon be a natural mechanism? Can you please tell us why a canyon could not form slowly over time?
Thats not the point.
whatever a slow formation of a canyon would end up looking like WOULD require to watch it. Othyerwise one must start with a presumption a canyon DID form slowly. There it is! Yet this only works if the only option for what a canyone looks like IS the one we see. Another option immediately ends the first options evidence claims. THEN having demonstrated the second option occurs, which as been done with slot canyons, glacial canyons, missoula flood type canyons (different ones), THEN , i say, there is no reason to invoke the original first idea of canyon formation. THEN on a probability curve, which, under reductionist theory, its very very unlikely there are two formation processes then bring a convergence of form.
False. We start with the presumption that we don’t know how long a canyon took to form. We don’t assume our conclusion, at least real geologists don’t do that.
Are you saying that there is absolutely no evidence that would convince you that a canyon took millions of years to form?
Where is the evidence that the GC formed quickly?
As already shown, the Channeled Scablands are entirely different from the GC. That’s why we know they didn’t form through the same process.
1 Like