It's Plain to see

[Devolution]

It’s plain to see
Flat land surfaces are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood

by Michael Oard

The globe we call home is adorned with beautiful snow-capped mountain ranges and lush, wide valleys. Plains and plateaus are common. Have you ever wondered how these landscapes formed?

Photo by Michael Oard
Figure 1

Figure 1: Flat and level, the tops of the Cypress Hills, Canada, were shaved flat by water, forming a planation surface. Later, local erosion cut into the surface, forming the wide valley in the foreground.

Photo by Michael Oard
Figure 2

Figure 2: Water once surged across the continent, depositing these rounded rocks on top of the Swift Current Creek Plateau, Canada.

Photo by Michael Oard
Figure 3

Figure 3: A small stream is now cutting into a once-large planation surface.

Photo by Tas Walker
Figure 4

Figure 4: Near-vertical sediments have been cut to form the New England Tableland, Australia. Later, erosion carved the gorge, now home to the Wollomombi Falls. Every continent bears these marks of receding floodwaters.

Most scientists who study landforms (i.e. geomorphologists1) believe the landscape was carved slowly by the same erosion processes that they observe today. This idea, that the ‘present is the key to the past’, is called uniformitarianism.

Starting with this belief, scientists try to imagine how rain, snow, ice and water eroded the rock bit by bit over millions of years. Increasingly, how­ever, these scientists are finding that there are many landscapes on the earth that they cannot explain this way.

Planation surfaces are one such landform.

Many cultures around the world speak about a global flood. Could the Genesis Flood solve the problem and explain these distinctive features of the earth’s surface?
What is a planation surface?

A planation surface is a large, level, or nearly level, land surface that has been ‘planed’ flat by running water (figure 1).2 Scientists believe that running water cut these surfaces because they are covered by rounded rocks (figure 2).3 Water is the only agent we know that can produce rounded rocks, by tumbling them against each other as it transports them along.

It is important to understand that a planation surface was cut into hard rock by an erosive watery mechanism. It is not a surface where sediments are deposited, like a river terrace, a gravel bar or a flood plain.

Planation surfaces can be amazingly flat. Once a planation surface has formed, creeks and heavy rain will often cut grooves and gullies into the surface, dissecting it into smaller areas (figure 3). Some planation surfaces are large, extending over 1,000 square kilometres. Yet, from the way they have been dissected, we can tell that they were even larger in the past.

Planation surfaces sometimes cut across tilted sedimentary rocks. They are especially easy to recognize (figure 4). The layered sedimentary rocks are often a combination of hard and soft rocks. Surprisingly, the watery mech­an­ism that formed the planation surface eroded the layers evenly (figure 5). Today, normal erosion by rainfall and weather erodes the soft rocks into valleys, leaving the hard rocks as ridges (figure 6). Only a gigantic, fast-running water flow could have cut both the hard and soft rocks evenly.
Planation surfaces worldwide

There are many landscapes on the earth that defy conventional (long-age) explanation.

Geomorphologist Lester King4 has documented that planation surfaces are abundant on all continents and found at different elevations. He noted about 60% of Africa is a series of planation surfaces. Some planation surfaces are located on the top of mountains (figure 7), including some that rise out of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Australian geomorphologist Rowl Twidale5 accepts King’s general scheme that remnants of planation surfaces punctuate the scenery of all the continents, usually at three elevations.

Planation surfaces not forming today

Except for when a flood erodes solid rock along a riverbank, planation surfaces are not being formed today.3 In fact, the only change observed on planation surfaces is that they are being dissected by ravines and gullies, and actively destroyed (figure 3). Crickmay6 comments:

   ‘There is no reason to suppose that any kind of wasting ever planes an area to flatness: decrepitation always roughens; rain-wash, even on ground already flat and smooth, tends to furrow it.’

Planation surfaces considered ‘old’

Peter Klevberg/Daniel Lewis
Figure 5

Figure 5: On a planation surface, both the hard and soft layers of rock have been shaved flat and covered with a layer of water rounded boulders.

Peter Klevberg/Daniel Lewis
Figure 6

Figure 6: Normal erosion produces an uneven landscape, removing the soft strata and leaving the hard.

Geologists who believe that erosion happened slowly have concluded that some planation surfaces formed many tens of millions of years ago. Yet they have remained flat to this day. The flat to undulating plateau of western Arnhem Land, Queensland, is conventionally ‘dated’ at over 100 million years old.7

Yet, at today’s rate of erosion, the continents would be reduced to near sea level in 10 to 50 million years.8 Obviously, these flat landscapes cannot be that old. They are clear evidence that something is wrong with the dating methods.
Slow erosion cannot explain planation surfaces

Even when landforms were first studied, geologists recognized planation surfaces.5 Many hypotheses have been advanced to try to explain them, but the origin of planation surfaces still eludes uni­formitarian scientists.9

Michael Thom­as and Michael Summerfield10 lament:

   ‘Understanding the long-term denudation [erosion] of landscapes remains speculative, despite attempts to find bridges between theories and the evidence which supports them. The existence of planation surfaces is asserted by a host of writers, yet few attempt any serious explanation of their development. … It is perplexing that after a century of argument and observation of the continents, no generally accepted mechanism for planation has been forthcoming.’

Planation surfaces explained by retreating floodwater

All agree that planation surfaces were formed in the past by water. The water would need to have been moving at high speed to erode soft and hard rocks evenly and leave boulders on the surface. The size of some planation surfaces indicates the flowing water covered a wide area. Furthermore, planing was the last major event to shape the landscape.

Photo by Michael Oard
Figure 7

Figure 7: Planed granite peaks of the Beartooth Mountains, south-central Montana, USA.

These observations fit well with the retreat of water off the land during Noah’s global Flood.11 High-speed water currents over wide areas would have carried rocks of many sizes. Moving rocks would have planed the surface flat, like sandpaper smoothes rough wood.

As the sea level lowered, the retreating floodwater would have cut the landscapes at lower and lower levels, producing planation surfaces at different elevations.

Present-day erosion is too fast for planation surfaces to be tens of millions of years old.12

Since planation surfaces are found all over the world, they provide strong evidence for a global Flood as described in Genesis. In fact, only the Genesis Flood can explain planation surfaces.

[Stu]

How much lazier could your plagiarism be than to copy and paste from a page that relies on photos, which aren't displayed in the copied version?

Hilarious.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Stu, attack the message not the messenger.

Often a sign that you yourself are too lazy to find good reasons why this is wrong or have no rebuttal.
I have seen the latter on a number of occasions where you have demonstrated how clueless you are even regarding your own rants.

Again, it is about the message. Try not to let bias hinder you. It is more credible to debate the message.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ April 25 2012,08:23)

Stu, attack the message not the messenger. Often a sign that you yourself are too lazy to find good reasons why this is wrong or have no rebuttal. I have seen the latter on a number of occasions where you have demonstrated how clueless you are even regarding your own rants. Again, it is about the message. Try not to let bias hinder you. It is more credible to debate the message.

How does your post answer the point I raised?

The message is the flawed part, and I pointed out the flaw.

Sheesh, as Americans say.

Stuart

[seekingtruth]

Quote (Stu @ April 24 2012,20:23)

How much lazier could your plagiarism be than to copy and paste from a page that relies on photos, which aren't displayed in the copied version? Hilarious. Stuart

Stu,
Really… plagiarism, with the authors name plastered all over it.

And you talk about lazy, but it took me less than 30 sec to find those pictures. I've noticed on quite a few threads now that you spend most of your time attacking the messenger as you seem to be lacking any valid argument other than your “religious platitudes”

Try disproving the facts and leave your religion out of it.

Wm

[Stu]

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 25 2012,22:43)

Quote (Stu @ April 24 2012,20:23) How much lazier could your plagiarism be than to copy and paste from a page that relies on photos, which aren't displayed in the copied version? Hilarious. Stuart Stu, Really… plagiarism, with the authors name plastered all over it. And you talk about lazy, but it took me less than 30 sec to find those pictures. I've noticed on a few threads now that you spend most of your time attacking the messenger as you seem to be lacking any valid argument other than your “religious platitudes” Try disproving the facts and leave your religion out of it. Wm

1. I don't have a religion.

2. You do have a point about this instance of copy-and-paste including a name, but there is little difference really, because the moron who copied and pasted it has added nothing of his own. Are we supposed to engage with him, or go to the website from which the material was stolen and discuss it there instead?

3. Good on you for going looking for the pictures. You are sure you got the right ones, of course. If you wanted to make a point that required images I think you would have made more of an effort.

4. As for facts, can you see one that is even worth considering?

Stuart

[seekingtruth]

religion – a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Regardless whether he presented the points as you saw fit or not, points were made, and you avoided “showing us” why the points were invalid but instead flung accusations as to his character and intelligence. But that is typical of the religion of those in power (whether it be so called “Christians” in the dark ages or the atheists of today).

Wm

[seekingtruth]

Stu,
One last point, you stated: 2. You do have a point about this instance of copy-and-paste including a name, but there is little difference really, because the moron who copied and pasted it has added nothing of his own.  Are we supposed to engage with him, or go to the website from which the material was stolen and discuss it there instead?

If what your quoting conveys what you want said, why do you need to add to it? It was put forth here so of course you would discuss it here. Once again your “rants” have nothing to do with disproving what was said but serve only to attempt in the frustration of your opponent.

[Stu]

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 25 2012,23:22)

religion – a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe Regardless whether he presented the points as you saw fit or not, points were made, and you avoided “showing us” why the points were invalid but instead flung accusations as to his character and intelligence. But that is typical of the religion of those in power (whether it be so called “Christians” in the dark ages or the atheists of today).   Wm

I have already asked you what valid point you think could be addressed, and you are avoiding that yourself. The accusations regarding intelligence are obviously true, and it is not typical of me to call people names, but I do make an exception for creationists, who are either lying cretins or morons.

re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

I see you used the christian dictionary. It changes its definitions to suit the user, like one you might see in Harry Potter.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 25 2012,23:40)

Stu, One last point, you stated: 2. You do have a point about this instance of copy-and-paste including a name, but there is little difference really, because the moron who copied and pasted it has added nothing of his own.  Are we supposed to engage with him, or go to the website from which the material was stolen and discuss it there instead? If what your quoting conveys what you want said, why do you need to add to it? It was put forth here so of course you would discuss it here. Once again your “rants” have nothing to do with disproving what was said but serve only to attempt in the frustration of your opponent.

I don't know what is expected from the poster of this stolen material.

And I promise you the moron creationist posting here has no honest intent whatever. He has no motive to try to come to a determination of that which is true. Although he is a moron creationist, he is following the disingenuous technique of the lying cretin creationist, specifically the lying cretin called Duane Gish, after whom is named the habit of swamping a discussion with multiple claims at such a speed that it is impossible to deal with each one in a meaningful way. Far from taking umbrage at my reaction, I think you should be doing the same as me and addressing the abuse of the forum represented by that dishonest strategy.

Would you accept it if I was just to post Revelation in its entirety, and leave you to guess what I intended by that, or if I posted Revelation then made a comment at the bottom that said this shows that all christians are insane?

That is what this guy is doing, effectively.

Stuart

[seekingtruth]

Stu,
I only commented on your treatment of Devolution and thought I would check into it what he posted at some later date. But as you've asked me what valid point you think could be addressed, these caught my eye:

It is perplexing that after a century of argument and observation of the continents, no generally accepted mechanism for planation has been forthcoming.

At today’s rate of erosion, the continents would be reduced to near sea level in 10 to 50 million years

These are claims that deserve to at least be checked for accuracy.

Quote

I see you used the christian dictionary.  It changes its definitions to suit the user, like one you might see in Harry Potter.

I see you use the atheist dictionary. I used Dictionary.com, however Merriam-Websters also defines religion as – a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I see nothing wrong with what he did, however I have posted clips from articles (much like Devolution did) or only scripture (like you mocked) when I felt it stood alone, but then what do I know, I'm either a lying cretin or a moron (at least according to you).  

Wm

[Ed J]

Hi Stuart,

It is funny how you call creationists 'morons',
but have nothing as an unambiguous substitute?    …quite odd really.

It reminds me of your foolishness to attempt to convince
others that God (according to atheists) don't exist, when you
yourself admit that you do NOT know for sure. Is this not moronic?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Stu]

Quote (seekingtruth @ April 26 2012,10:30)

Stu, I only commented on your treatment of Devolution and thought I would check into it what he posted at some later date. But as you've asked me what valid point you think could be addressed, these caught my eye: It is perplexing that after a century of argument and observation of the continents, no generally accepted mechanism for planation has been forthcoming. At today’s rate of erosion, the continents would be reduced to near sea level in 10 to 50 million years

It would be perplexing if anyone could find a single, generally acceptable mechanism that covered both the examples of planation that were once seafloor and examples that result from erosion by a widely shifting river.

The stolen material without its photos apparently left off a photograph of the Beartooth range in Montana and Wyoming, which seems to include some kind of caption that suggests the flat tops of the mountains have been planed off by water. There is a picture that shows how wrong that example is:

This is Beartooth Butte. It is a deposit of fossil-containing sedimentary rock on top of the granite of the Beartooth range. According to the dating, which had not been questioned in this article, this Butte and the large block of Precambrian granite under it, were uplifted from the seafloor between 62 million and 57 million years ago, carrying with it fossils that are 360 to 410 million years old.

Now, the usual creationist claim is that such fossil deposits as this Butte were produced during the biblical flood. So is it that the fossil deposits were made by the flood on the seafloor, or eroded by the flood at the top of a mountain? The lying cretins can’t have it both ways.

As for the claims about rates of erosion, the stolen fantasy story tells us about the layers deposited ON TOP of the planed-down areas. So is it erosion wearing the continent down, or sediments building it up? The lying cretins want it both ways, but it is both happening depending on where you are. They also conveniently forget to mention the massive tectonic uplift of land, the evidence for which is a major and interesting aspect of the geology of the Beartooth range and indeed of the entire Western Seaboard of the US including the Rocky Mountain range. That evidence is in the stresses and marks left in the rocks during the uplift, and the obvious “crumpled up” geomorphology of the Western side of the US, as can be seen from the air.

This is what lying cretin creationists see in the mirror:
<img src=" ” target=”_blank”>http://www.boston.com/ae&#8230;.mg]

Quote

I see you use the atheist dictionary. I used Dictionary.com, however Merriam-Websters also defines religion as – a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I’ve bolded the section of each sense of the word religion to which I do not hold, thus invalidating all of them in regards to me:

Dictionary.com:
re•li•gion
   [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

http://www.merriam-webster.com

religion

1a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Quote

I see nothing wrong with what he did,

Well perhaps you could ask him to demonstrate more of his claims (well, not his claims…actually there is probably no point, he doesn’t understand what he posts, which is the major thing he is doing wrong).

Question these, and see what answers you get, or don’t get:

Quote

Only a gigantic, fast-running water flow could have cut both the hard and soft rocks evenly. Increasingly, how¬ever, these scientists are finding that there are many landscapes on the earth that they cannot explain this way. Planation surfaces are one such landform. Obviously, these flat landscapes cannot be [100 million years] old. These observations fit well with the retreat of water off the land during Noah’s global Flood. Present-day erosion is too fast for planation surfaces to be tens of millions of years old. In fact, only the Genesis Flood can explain planation surfaces.. Planation surfaces not forming today…Except for when a flood erodes solid rock along a riverbank, planation surfaces are not being formed today.

Quote

however I have posted clips from articles (much like Devolution did) or only scripture (like you mocked) when I felt it stood alone, but then what do I know, I'm either a lying cretin or a moron (at least according to you).

If you think the earth is younger than 10,000 years then there is no question you are a moron. Of course if you could give unambiguous evidence that contradicts the current massive pile of evidence that the earth is 4.55 billion years old, then you would not be a moron, but a genuine scientific theory.
Unfortunately there is no such counter-evidence in existence, and all we ever seem to find is evidence consistent with a 4.55 billion year old planet.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,10:50)

Hi Stuart, It is funny how you call creationists 'morons', but have nothing as an unambiguous substitute?    …quite odd really. It reminds me of your foolishness to attempt to convince others that God (according to atheists) don't exist, when you yourself admit that you do NOT know for sure. Is this not moronic? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

What is an “unambiguous substitute”?

Stuart

[Stu]

This is what lying cretin creationists see in the mirror:

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ April 26 2012,20:36)

Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,10:50) Hi Stuart, It is funny how you call creationists 'morons', but have nothing as an unambiguous substitute?    …quite odd really. It reminds me of your foolishness to attempt to convince others that God (according to atheists) don't exist, when you yourself admit that you do NOT know for sure. Is this not moronic? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org What is an “unambiguous substitute”? Stuart

Hi Stuart,

No other conclusion can be drawn.

I have illustrated “Proof of God” to you,
yet you say it is not unambiguous when
no other conclusion can possibly be drawn.
MY proof can be Scientifically proven as true!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,21:24)

Quote (Stu @ April 26 2012,20:36) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,10:50) Hi Stuart, It is funny how you call creationists 'morons', but have nothing as an unambiguous substitute?    …quite odd really. It reminds me of your foolishness to attempt to convince others that God (according to atheists) don't exist, when you yourself admit that you do NOT know for sure. Is this not moronic? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org What is an “unambiguous substitute”? Stuart Hi Stuart, No other conclusion can be drawn. I have illustrated “Proof of God” to you, yet you say it is not unambiguous when no other conclusion can possibly be drawn. MY proof can be Scientifically proven as true! God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

I don't think you quite understand the meaning of “unambiguous”.

Or the word “scientifically”.

Or “moronic”.

Have you looked up any of these words? Do you understand why the term “Scientifically proven as true” is an oxymoron?

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ April 26 2012,21:54)

Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,21:24) Quote (Stu @ April 26 2012,20:36) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,10:50) Hi Stuart, It is funny how you call creationists 'morons', but have nothing as an unambiguous substitute?    …quite odd really. It reminds me of your foolishness to attempt to convince others that God (according to atheists) don't exist, when you yourself admit that you do NOT know for sure. Is this not moronic? God bless Ed J What is an “unambiguous substitute”? Stuart Hi Stuart, No other conclusion can be drawn. I have illustrated “Proof of God” to you, yet you say it is not unambiguous when no other conclusion can possibly be drawn. MY proof can be Scientifically proven as true! God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org I don't think you quite understand the meaning of “unambiguous”. Or the word “scientifically”. Or “moronic”.   Have you looked up any of these words?  Do you understand why the term “Scientifically proven as true” is an oxymoron? Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Here are the definitions…

Unambiguous: not open to more than one interpretation.

Moronic: something 'a very stupid person' does or believes.

Scientifically proven: the method for proving the investigated
phenomena through the analysis of observing the testable facts.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,23:27)

Quote (Stu @ April 26 2012,21:54) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,21:24) Quote (Stu @ April 26 2012,20:36) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,10:50) Hi Stuart, It is funny how you call creationists 'morons', but have nothing as an unambiguous substitute?    …quite odd really. It reminds me of your foolishness to attempt to convince others that God (according to atheists) don't exist, when you yourself admit that you do NOT know for sure. Is this not moronic? God bless Ed J What is an “unambiguous substitute”? Stuart Hi Stuart, No other conclusion can be drawn. I have illustrated “Proof of God” to you, yet you say it is not unambiguous when no other conclusion can possibly be drawn. MY proof can be Scientifically proven as true! God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org I don't think you quite understand the meaning of “unambiguous”. Or the word “scientifically”. Or “moronic”.   Have you looked up any of these words?  Do you understand why the term “Scientifically proven as true” is an oxymoron? Stuart Hi Stuart, Here are the definitions… Unambiguous: not open to more than one interpretation. Moronic: something 'a very stupid person' does or believes. Scientifically proven: the method for proving the investigated phenomena through the analysis of observing the testable facts. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Good, so with your moronic numerology, you appear to have forgotten about all the other conclusions I made for you that were not only possible, but were more likely. And you have still failed to explain how the word “substitute” can follow “unambiguous”.

Regarding “scientifically proven”, your source is wrong.

Stuart

[seekingtruth]

Stu,

Quote

If you think the earth is younger than 10,000 years then there is no question you are a moron.  Of course if you could give unambiguous evidence that contradicts the current massive pile of evidence that the earth is 4.55 billion years old, then you would not be a moron, but a genuine scientific theory.

Depending on your interpretation of scriptures it allows for either an old earth, or a new one (not so with life though). “unambiguous evidence” All we can do today is speculate at the aftermath. I see some flaws with young earth but at the same time it gives a better explanation of what I see around us (so maybe I'll go from just plain stupid to a real moron). So what is this “unambiguous evidence” that the earth is 4.55 billion years old? (not 4 1/2 billion but 4.55… sounds much more “factual” that way)

Quote

Unfortunately there is no such counter-evidence in existence, and all we ever seem to find is evidence consistent with a 4.55 billion year old planet.

Just like scriptures “facts” are interpreted with bias and the line between facts and interpretations becomes blurred (such as the theory of evolution being fact). You believe that creationists lie (and some have) but an evolutionist never would… oh wait.. they have.

Try an open mind it can be very enlightening in a search for truth.

Wm

[Author]

Posts