Whats really interesting is that we can argue about how long it took for the Grand Canyon to form.
But the YEC's have a huge advantage.
Mt. St Helens proves rapid canyon formation is possible.
The model works in a similar fashion to the real life methods that formed the gourge that now contains the Toutle River.
Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the Grand Canyon was believed to have been formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon.....similar to what happened at Mt. St Helens when the "little Grand Canyon" was formed rapidly. .
Full Version: The Grand Formation...
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Feb 24 2007, 06:58 PM)
Whats really interesting is that we can argue about how long it took for the Grand Canyon to form.
But the YEC's have a huge advantage.
Mt. St Helens proves rapid canyon formation is possible.
The model works in a similar fashion to the real life methods that formed the gourge that now contains the Toutle River.
Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the Grand Canyon was believed to have been formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon.....similar to what happened at Mt. St Helens when the "little Grand Canyon" was formed rapidly. .
But the YEC's have a huge advantage.
Mt. St Helens proves rapid canyon formation is possible.
The model works in a similar fashion to the real life methods that formed the gourge that now contains the Toutle River.
Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the Grand Canyon was believed to have been formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon.....similar to what happened at Mt. St Helens when the "little Grand Canyon" was formed rapidly. .
Trilobyte, you haven't cited any sources. Please fill us in on where you found the original material so that we can all enjoy it.
If one has a cross section of the grand canyon and compared it to Mt St Helens, you seem to be implying that you get the same result. I would bet that the process of canyon forming can be determined by the evidence found on the ground. E.g. I would bet that volcanic and erosion leave clues.
The bottom line is....rapid canyon formation is possible. That's a fact.
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Feb 26 2007, 05:57 PM)
The bottom line is....rapid canyon formation is possible. That's a fact.
If only it were that simple.
You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument? If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?
The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.
Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon. Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence). One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.
QUOTE(chance @ Feb 26 2007, 08:45 PM)
If only it were that simple.
You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument? If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?
The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.
Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon. Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence). One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.
You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument? If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?
The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.
Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon. Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence). One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.
Are you saying the grand canyon wasn't formed when a lake burst its banks?
QUOTE(kega @ Feb 27 2007, 09:11 PM)
Are you saying the grand canyon wasn't formed when a lake burst its banks?
Well kega I’m glad you asked me for my opinion, because as of yet no one has discussed the exact processes that formed the grand canyon. Currently it has been confined to a general statement of formed over a long time.
Two events are necessary,
a. The deposition of the sedimentary layers (certainly very long periods of time)
b. The erosion of those layers (less time than the deposition)
The lake you refer to is “lake Bidahochi” it certainly played a part. According to this LINK
there are two scenarios:
QUOTE
At this point there are at least two popular theories which describe what happens next:
Around 20 million years ago the Colorado River begins to carve into the Grand Canyon at its eastern end, Marble Canyon, and probably exiting via Kanab Canyon.
At 17 million years ago the Colorado Plateau begins to uplift and causes the river to cut deeper.
Around 5 million years ago the uplift ceases and another river working its way northward along the San Andreas fault and eastward along the western Colorado Plateau captures the Colorado River.
OR
Around 35 million years ago the Kaibab Plateau begins to uplift and diverts the ancestral Colorado, which was already established on a course very similar to that of today, to the southeast. The cut-off western portion, now named the Hualapai Drainage System, contines to drain the western region.
About 12 million years ago the Colorado's path to the sea is blocked and a huge lake, Lake Bidahochi, is formed.
Eventually the Hualapai cuts back through the southern portion of the plateau and recaptures the Colorado. Lake Bidahochi is drained and becomes the Little Colorado River.
Around 20 million years ago the Colorado River begins to carve into the Grand Canyon at its eastern end, Marble Canyon, and probably exiting via Kanab Canyon.
At 17 million years ago the Colorado Plateau begins to uplift and causes the river to cut deeper.
Around 5 million years ago the uplift ceases and another river working its way northward along the San Andreas fault and eastward along the western Colorado Plateau captures the Colorado River.
OR
Around 35 million years ago the Kaibab Plateau begins to uplift and diverts the ancestral Colorado, which was already established on a course very similar to that of today, to the southeast. The cut-off western portion, now named the Hualapai Drainage System, contines to drain the western region.
About 12 million years ago the Colorado's path to the sea is blocked and a huge lake, Lake Bidahochi, is formed.
Eventually the Hualapai cuts back through the southern portion of the plateau and recaptures the Colorado. Lake Bidahochi is drained and becomes the Little Colorado River.
This is the lake I presume you are refering to, yes?
QUOTE(chance @ Feb 26 2007, 04:45 PM)
If only it were that simple.
You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument? If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?
The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.
Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon. Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence). One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.
You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument? If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?
The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.
Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon. Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence). One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.
YIKES..It sems as if Chance is claiming that all canyons take millions of years to form.
I mentioned the lakes..that are no longer there...and the "soft" sediment deposited by the flood..the model works Chance.
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Mar 3 2007, 09:36 AM)
chance>
If only it were that simple.
You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument? If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?
The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.
Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon. Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence). One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.
trilobyte>
YIKES..It sems as if Chance is claiming that all canyons take millions of years to form.
(my bold)If only it were that simple.
You are making a mistake in logic, if you presume that, because some canyons can be formed rapidly, all canyons are formed rapidly, is that your argument? If it is not your argument, then what is your purpose in comparing the two different canyon forming events?
The facts are that Mt St Helens was a violent event, a characteristically different event from the formation of the grand canyon.
Take a look at the closed topic on the grand canyon and you will see a picture I posted that shows the cross sectional layers of grand canyon. Now, with out any research at all on Mt St Helens I will make a prediction that the geography of the is quite different, (even is one ignores the volcanic evidence). One is carved by a river over long periods of time, while the other is not.
trilobyte>
YIKES..It sems as if Chance is claiming that all canyons take millions of years to form.
!!! I think you need to re-read my statement above, pay particular attention to the bolded! I was actually asking you to clarify your position !
QUOTE
I mentioned the lakes..that are no longer there...and the "soft" sediment deposited by the flood..the model works
Please explain what “works” with some reasonable detail, (the picture does not explain your POV). i.e. In your explanation please explain how the Mt St Helens event is comparable to the formation of the Grand canyon.
Re all claims that the “mini grand canyon” proves rapid canyon formation is possible.
I would wager that the “mini grand canyon” that is often reported as ‘devastating to old earth interpretations” of the grand canyon will look remarkably like this image from the USGS web site, Mt St Helens section.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov
This is a picture of the volcanic ash eroding rather rapidly as it is not bound together very strongly like sedimentary rock.
Note the complete absence of layering like that found in sedimentary rock. The outward remembrance to the grand canyon starts and finishes in that they are both gorges cut by flowing water.
Even the most armature observations (just by the pictures) you can easily tell that the two terrains are worlds apart in formation.
I would wager that the “mini grand canyon” that is often reported as ‘devastating to old earth interpretations” of the grand canyon will look remarkably like this image from the USGS web site, Mt St Helens section.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov
This is a picture of the volcanic ash eroding rather rapidly as it is not bound together very strongly like sedimentary rock.
Note the complete absence of layering like that found in sedimentary rock. The outward remembrance to the grand canyon starts and finishes in that they are both gorges cut by flowing water.
Even the most armature observations (just by the pictures) you can easily tell that the two terrains are worlds apart in formation.
Interesting...the picture above looks similar to the Grand Canyon. It even has a small "river" flowing down the middle of it.
Of course no one would suggest that the small trickle of water seen in the picture carved out that "gorge".
But you suggest the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon????????
It's obvious that a large amount of water carved out both...quickly...while the sediment was still soft.
Of course no one would suggest that the small trickle of water seen in the picture carved out that "gorge".
But you suggest the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon????????
It's obvious that a large amount of water carved out both...quickly...while the sediment was still soft.
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Apr 15 2007, 11:21 PM)
a. Interesting...the picture above looks similar to the Grand Canyon. It even has a small "river" flowing down the middle of it.
b. Of course no one would suggest that the small trickle of water seen in the picture carved out that "gorge".
c. But you suggest the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon????????
d. It's obvious that a large amount of water carved out both...quickly...while the sediment was still soft.
(my paragraphing)b. Of course no one would suggest that the small trickle of water seen in the picture carved out that "gorge".
c. But you suggest the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon????????
d. It's obvious that a large amount of water carved out both...quickly...while the sediment was still soft.
Re.a looks can be deceiving! Outward appearance does not infer the same processes were involved.
Re-Shape
Besides, the outward appearances are in reality, quite different. The Grand canyon has ‘true’ layering’ the soft muddy canon does not. There is much meandering in Grand Canyon where the Colorado has changed its course. A single flood event will not do this, the flow will be much more linier as the water flows down hill. No geologist would be fooled by the geology of the ‘mini grand canyon’.
Re.b Of course not, the fast flow has done much of the erosion, but notice what the small trickle has done, take a close look. Do you see that when slowed down there is a miniature canyon in the mini canyon! The shape of this has much more in common with the real Grand canyon, here the water has to follow the path of least resistance, it begins to meander. By contrast the ‘mini grand canyon is much straighter.
Re.c yep no doubt about it, a retreating flood cannot turn around corners.
Re.d Absolutely not, the difference in the type of formation is significantly different in shape.
And we have not even got into what the layers are made of, what is contained within them! Which will be consistent with old earth and inconsistent with a young earth.
The meanders were formed before the dam broke and let the massive flood of water flow...channeled by the meanders.
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Apr 16 2007, 10:16 AM)
A. The meanders were formed before the dam broke
B. and let the massive flood of water flow...channeled by the meanders.
(my paragraphing)B. and let the massive flood of water flow...channeled by the meanders.
Re.a Dam, what dam? What formed the meanders? Are you proposing some method where meanders can form underwater (under the Noachian flood) I don’t see how this is possible as it is ‘supposedly’ the sediment building era, yes?
Re.b As the Noachian flood retreats, the erosion of the Grand canyon cannot even begin until there is some concentrated erosion (i.e. the Colorado river), while the flood is in force, the land beneath is silting up and protected. To cut a canyon you need the erosion to be in a specific area, a very large flood will just roll over the top, erosion wont even begin until levels drop and ‘relative flow’ between (the now ‘solidified’) rock and the surface water (and even then it wont be concentrated into a specific channel, until the levels drop below the highest point). Does a submerged submarine feel a storm on the surface?
Chance, the dam broke and spilled the lakes into the ALREADY formed meanders.
The meanders formed as water at a much lower rate leaked out of the lakes and eroded the not quite hard landscape.
When the dam finally broke, the rushing waters were then confined to the already established meanders, only widening and deepening them.
The meanders formed as water at a much lower rate leaked out of the lakes and eroded the not quite hard landscape.
When the dam finally broke, the rushing waters were then confined to the already established meanders, only widening and deepening them.
See post 8 for the lakes and position of the dam.
But your not explaining anything, in post #8, your sum comment is
So you haven’t really given us a model have you! how about a time line, like:
Noachian flood
Soft rock (rock is soft?)
Hard rock (how does it turn hard)
Flood departs, etc with some dates
Can infer that some portion of the Grand Canyon was cut before and some after, the departure of the flood, yes? So from the link below where do you place that dividing line?
From LINK
QUOTE
I mentioned the lakes..that are no longer there...and the "soft" sediment deposited by the flood..the model works
So you haven’t really given us a model have you! how about a time line, like:
Noachian flood
Soft rock (rock is soft?)
Hard rock (how does it turn hard)
Flood departs, etc with some dates
Can infer that some portion of the Grand Canyon was cut before and some after, the departure of the flood, yes? So from the link below where do you place that dividing line?
From LINK
This is a simple timeline I dug out earlier.
STRATA AS RELATED TO THE STAGES OF THE FLOOD.
**********************************
POST FLOOD
Bryce Canyon Area
(Cenozoic) Brian Head Fm.
Wasatch Fm.
**********************************
LATE FLOOD
Zion Canyon Area
(Mesozoic) Kaiparowits FM.
Straight Cliffs SS. (Grey Cliffs)
Tropic FM.
Dakota FM.
Carmel FM.
Navajo SS. (White Cliffs)
Kayenta FM.
Moenave FM. (Vermilion Cliffs)
Chinle FM.
Shinarump MBR.
Moenkopi FM.
************************************
EARLY FLOOD
Grand Canyon
(Paleozoic) Kaibab LS. (Canyon Rim)
Toroweap FM.
Coconino FM.
Hermit SH.
Supai Group.
Redwall LS.
Temple Butte LS.
Mauv LS.
Bright Angel SH. (Tonto Platform)
Tapeats SS.
***************************************
PRE-FLOOD AND CREATION WEEK
Grand Canyon
(Precambrian) Chuar Group.
Unkar Group
Vishnu,Zoroaster
STRATA AS RELATED TO THE STAGES OF THE FLOOD.
**********************************
POST FLOOD
Bryce Canyon Area
(Cenozoic) Brian Head Fm.
Wasatch Fm.
**********************************
LATE FLOOD
Zion Canyon Area
(Mesozoic) Kaiparowits FM.
Straight Cliffs SS. (Grey Cliffs)
Tropic FM.
Dakota FM.
Carmel FM.
Navajo SS. (White Cliffs)
Kayenta FM.
Moenave FM. (Vermilion Cliffs)
Chinle FM.
Shinarump MBR.
Moenkopi FM.
************************************
EARLY FLOOD
Grand Canyon
(Paleozoic) Kaibab LS. (Canyon Rim)
Toroweap FM.
Coconino FM.
Hermit SH.
Supai Group.
Redwall LS.
Temple Butte LS.
Mauv LS.
Bright Angel SH. (Tonto Platform)
Tapeats SS.
***************************************
PRE-FLOOD AND CREATION WEEK
Grand Canyon
(Precambrian) Chuar Group.
Unkar Group
Vishnu,Zoroaster
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Apr 17 2007, 07:50 AM)
This is a simple timeline I dug out earlier. <snip list>
Thanks for that, this shoud make discussion on whats what, much easier.
All righty then, here we go. I’ll address you post in a number of replies, this one will be what we can agree upon just by observing.
First lets compare your list of the grand canyon to the mini Grand Canyon picture in post #10, What hits you first is the almost complete absence of layers, what minor layering there is, is a reflection of rapid depositing of a largely homogeneous substance, (plus moisture content, perhaps a slight difference in volcanic ejecta over the period of eruption). But basically is all the same soft stuff.
Now, for comparison take a look at the website below, LINK, at the bottom of that page is this depiction of the canyon.
I think you can agree that there is several orders of magnitude of an increase in the complexity of the Grand Canyon, in comparison to the Mini Grand Canyon.
Note the base of the Grand canyon is actually carving it’s way through granite, everything above is sedimentary rock, stacked in very neat and distinct layers, something not explainable by rapid deposition like a Noachian flood. There’s no evidence of a global calamity here, it is a very ordered, sedimentation processes (lots of them), and a flood will not give you the layering we see here, it’s a physical impossibility.
QUOTE
trilobyte>
This is a simple timeline I dug out earlier.
This is a simple timeline I dug out earlier.
Ok, time to have a look at your time line in detail.
The paragraphing numbers represent the layers, Youngest layers (#20+) on top, oldest (#1) on bottom.
I’ve taken the liberty of formatting your list a little so as its a bit more compatible, for comparison purposes.
STRATA AS RELATED TO THE STAGES OF THE FLOOD.
D. POST FLOOD Bryce Canyon Area (Cenozoic)
Brian Head Fm.
Wasatch Fm.
C. LATE FLOOD Zion Canyon Area (Mesozoic)
Kaiparowits FM.
Straight Cliffs SS. (Grey Cliffs)
Tropic FM.
Dakota FM.
Carmel FM.
Navajo SS. (White Cliffs)
Kayenta FM.
Moenave FM. (Vermilion Cliffs)
Chinle FM.
Shinarump MBR.
Moenkopi FM.
B. EARLY FLOOD (Paleozoic) {chance. From this point and older, direct correlation between your list and the one I posted is possible, numbered 1 – 20. Type of layer is bolded, fossils found are Italics}.
20. Kaibab Limestone. brachiopods, coral, molluscs, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth
19. Toroweap Limestone. brachiopods, coral, molluscs, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth
18. Coconino Sandstone. invertebrate tracks, burrows, fossil sand dunes
17. Hermit Shale. ferns, conifers, other plants, reptiles and amphibian tracks.
16. Supai Group. (shale, limestone, sandstone) East - amphibians, reptiles and terrestrial plants. West - marine fossils.
15. Redwall limestone. brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites
14. Temple Butte. Limestone. East - freshwater fish. West - marine fossils
13. Mauv Limestone. trilobites and brachiopods.
12. Bright Angel Shale. . trilobites and brachiopods
11. Tapeats Sandstone. brachiopods, and trilobite
A. PRE Noachian FLOOD, AND CREATION WEEK (Precambrian)
unconformity
Chuar Group. (10 – 6)
10. Sixtymile Formation shale.
9. Kwagunt Formation. .Shale, mudstone, some limestone. Stromatolites.
8. Galeros Formaton. Sandstone, limestone and shale. Stromatolites
7. Nankoweap Formation. Sandstone.
6. Cardenas Lava
Unkar Group. (5 – 2).
5. Dox Sandstone. sandstone, shale. Stromatolites, algae.
4. Shinumo Quartzite. sandstone.
3. Hakatai Shale. shale, sandstone.
2. Bass Formation. Limestone.. stromatolites.
unconformity
1. Vishnu, Zoroaster – Granite.1
My comments/questions re paragraphs A - D.
A. pre Noachian Flood (1 – 10) – you will note the very different types of layers, in the following sequence - granite, shale, sandstone, sandstone, lava, sandstone, shale, shale. I have to ask what mechanism has deposited such an intricate mix of sedimentary rock, and embedded such a poor representation of post creation life?
B. Early Noachian flood (11 – 20) – the sequence of layers this time is, sandstone, shale, limestone, limestone, limestone, shale, sandstone, shale, shale, sandstone, limestone, limestone. Again what mechanisms do you propose can lay down this sequence, while the earth is flooded. This being the most violent period in earths history, with much death, how is it that nothing much more evolved than fish and amphibians has left it’s mark?
C. LATE FLOOD Zion Canyon Area (Mesozoic) - Clarification is required, is this a separate flood to the Noachian flood?
D. POST FLOOD Bryce Canyon Area (Cenozoic) - Clarification is required, is this a separate flood to the Noachian flood?
Chance, I never said that the mini grand canyon was as complex as the Grand canyon...this seems to be some sort of strawman argument you added to the argument.
I just pointed out that water can easily gourge out a canyon.
The different layers of the grand canyon represent different stages/time periods of the flood. The waters increasing, depositing sediment..then receeding, then increasing etc.
In fact the often smooth transition from one layer to the next with no wear is an excellent indication that the one layer was deposited very shortly after the previous.
I just pointed out that water can easily gourge out a canyon.
The different layers of the grand canyon represent different stages/time periods of the flood. The waters increasing, depositing sediment..then receeding, then increasing etc.
In fact the often smooth transition from one layer to the next with no wear is an excellent indication that the one layer was deposited very shortly after the previous.
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Apr 19 2007, 06:11 AM)
Chance, I never said that the mini grand canyon was as complex as the Grand canyon...this seems to be some sort of strawman argument you added to the argument.
I just pointed out that water can easily gourge out a canyon.
I just pointed out that water can easily gourge out a canyon.
I am well aware of your position of this, you previously stated
QUOTE
trilobyte>
The bottom line is....rapid canyon formation is possible. That's a fact.
The bottom line is....rapid canyon formation is possible. That's a fact.
No doubt, but, there is more to it than just that. The inference is that the rapid formation of the mini Grand Canyon is some sort of evidence that the Grand canyon also formed rapidly, do you deny this?
I bring your attention to the title of this thread The Grand Formation..., A live Labortory for all to watch and learn. And the opening post:
QUOTE
trilobyte>
But the YEC's have a huge advantage.
Mt. St Helens proves rapid canyon formation is possible.
The model works in a similar fashion to the real life methods that formed the gourge that now contains the Toutle River.
Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the Grand Canyon was believed to have been formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon.....similar to what happened at Mt. St Helens when the "little Grand Canyon" was formed rapidly. .
(my bold)But the YEC's have a huge advantage.
Mt. St Helens proves rapid canyon formation is possible.
The model works in a similar fashion to the real life methods that formed the gourge that now contains the Toutle River.
Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the Grand Canyon was believed to have been formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon.....similar to what happened at Mt. St Helens when the "little Grand Canyon" was formed rapidly. .
So, given those opening statements I feel justified that you are indeed, trying to infer that the formation of the Mini Grand Canyon is evidence that the same/similar process occurred in the Grand Canyon. If this is not your position, I request that you clarify it in your next post please.
Yes, I believe that the little grand canyon and the Grand Canyon were formed under similar instances.
They both formed quickly by flowing water cutting thhrough not yet hardened material.
The science is there. It has been demonstrated to be feasable.
They both formed quickly by flowing water cutting thhrough not yet hardened material.
The science is there. It has been demonstrated to be feasable.
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Apr 22 2007, 11:41 PM)
Yes, I believe that the little grand canyon and the Grand Canyon were formed under similar instances.
Ok then. In that case I wait for your comments to my posts #19 and 20. Specifically, the explanation for the layering found in the Grand Canyon.
QUOTE
They both formed quickly by flowing water cutting thhrough not yet hardened material.
Could you expand upon this a bit further please. Are you of the opinion that the Noachian flood deposited all the material and it was eroded while still soft? Was all the sediment soft, or just the area we now call the Grand Canyon? It might help if you added time dates to your original time line, to help clear up what is proposed to happen and when.
QUOTE
The science is there. It has been demonstrated to be feasable.
What is your source of the science you claim to have, is there a link I can read?
Yes it was all still soft. It wasn't mud.
If the events which happened at Mt St. Helens did so 3000 years ago and the uniformatarian geologist visited the same gorge in todays time they would more than likely figure that the gorge was carved out by a flow of water. This part would be accurate, except the uniformatarian geologist would also *assume* a very large amount of time (millions of years) was required to carve out the gorge.
If the events which happened at Mt St. Helens did so 3000 years ago and the uniformatarian geologist visited the same gorge in todays time they would more than likely figure that the gorge was carved out by a flow of water. This part would be accurate, except the uniformatarian geologist would also *assume* a very large amount of time (millions of years) was required to carve out the gorge.
The lower lowest level of the Grand Canyon are made up of the Vishu and Zoaroaster rocks which lie below the Unkar Group and the Chuar Group. These pre-flood strata are currently in an inclined position and were raised up as the fountains of the deep opened up. The two sedimentary layers, Unkar and Chuar were deposited as ocean floor which covered the area currently known as Arizona. This sedimentary deposits had accumulated during the time between the creation of the world and the flood of Noah.
The waters of the flood advanced from Nevada through Arizona and New Mexico depositing their sediment. Evidence of this is shown when one looks at the direction of increasing sediment coarseness, direction of increasing bottom sediment and the direction of thinning of sediment cover.
As you examine the strata from nevada towards New Mexico it is possible to divide the area up into six parts. The Mauve Limestones is a lime Mud zone and was the farthest to the west(Nevada). The water here was the deepest and the slowest and consisted up a fine mud facies. The velocity was about <0.5 m/sec. Moving eastward the next exposed area is the clay mud zone of the Bright Angel Shale. This layer is made up of silt size particles that were moving at 0.5 m/sec and are the residue winnowed from the Tapeats Sandstones and the Great Unconformity. Towards the east next to be exposed is the Tapeats sandstones. The western side consist of ripples while the eastern side is sandwaves. The deposits are fine to course sand facies which were deposited in water moving at a velocity of 0.5 to 1.5 m/sec . The Tapeats sandstones to the farthest point east has a pebble zone consisting of very course pebbles and boulders. the water at this point had a velocity of appr. 1.5 m/sec.
The Great Unconformity is the result of intense scouring and erosion of the shallow fast flood waters on the pre-flood rocks. The velocity has been estimated at >2 m/sec. The above layers represent the earliest deposits as the flood waters began to advance.
Near the top of the sediment laid down by the flood waters in the early stages we find the Coconino Sandstones. The area of the sandstone exceeds 100,000 square miles and it’s volume is conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles. It is believed that the the material for this layer came from the north being transported a great distance. No local source area is known. Many uniformatarians believe that the Coconino formation was made by sand that was moved by the winds from the north. The creationist have a different opinion. The slope angels of the sandwaves indicate that the sand was deposited in water rather than blown in place by wind. There is also a feature known as parting lineation which is formed on sand surfaces in flowing water and is not present in desert dunes. Studies have also shown that the size of the sand represents sand waves and not those of current desert sand dunes.
The sand in the Toroweap formation was deposited from sand eroded from the Coconino sandstone which suggest that there was substantial water currents and not a sluggish sea. It should also be interesting to note that the abrupt and flat contact of the Toroweap with the Coconino and in places an intertounging relationship between the two indicate that no long period of time separates the two. This is what the flood model would suggest. The deposits that use to have been above the Grand Canyon have been eroded away as the flood water receded. The Zion Canyon Area shows flood deposits that were not eroded as the flood waters receded.
REF. Mostly from,
Grand Canyon
Monument to Catastrophe
Edited by Steve A. Austin
The waters of the flood advanced from Nevada through Arizona and New Mexico depositing their sediment. Evidence of this is shown when one looks at the direction of increasing sediment coarseness, direction of increasing bottom sediment and the direction of thinning of sediment cover.
As you examine the strata from nevada towards New Mexico it is possible to divide the area up into six parts. The Mauve Limestones is a lime Mud zone and was the farthest to the west(Nevada). The water here was the deepest and the slowest and consisted up a fine mud facies. The velocity was about <0.5 m/sec. Moving eastward the next exposed area is the clay mud zone of the Bright Angel Shale. This layer is made up of silt size particles that were moving at 0.5 m/sec and are the residue winnowed from the Tapeats Sandstones and the Great Unconformity. Towards the east next to be exposed is the Tapeats sandstones. The western side consist of ripples while the eastern side is sandwaves. The deposits are fine to course sand facies which were deposited in water moving at a velocity of 0.5 to 1.5 m/sec . The Tapeats sandstones to the farthest point east has a pebble zone consisting of very course pebbles and boulders. the water at this point had a velocity of appr. 1.5 m/sec.
The Great Unconformity is the result of intense scouring and erosion of the shallow fast flood waters on the pre-flood rocks. The velocity has been estimated at >2 m/sec. The above layers represent the earliest deposits as the flood waters began to advance.
Near the top of the sediment laid down by the flood waters in the early stages we find the Coconino Sandstones. The area of the sandstone exceeds 100,000 square miles and it’s volume is conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles. It is believed that the the material for this layer came from the north being transported a great distance. No local source area is known. Many uniformatarians believe that the Coconino formation was made by sand that was moved by the winds from the north. The creationist have a different opinion. The slope angels of the sandwaves indicate that the sand was deposited in water rather than blown in place by wind. There is also a feature known as parting lineation which is formed on sand surfaces in flowing water and is not present in desert dunes. Studies have also shown that the size of the sand represents sand waves and not those of current desert sand dunes.
The sand in the Toroweap formation was deposited from sand eroded from the Coconino sandstone which suggest that there was substantial water currents and not a sluggish sea. It should also be interesting to note that the abrupt and flat contact of the Toroweap with the Coconino and in places an intertounging relationship between the two indicate that no long period of time separates the two. This is what the flood model would suggest. The deposits that use to have been above the Grand Canyon have been eroded away as the flood water receded. The Zion Canyon Area shows flood deposits that were not eroded as the flood waters receded.
REF. Mostly from,
Grand Canyon
Monument to Catastrophe
Edited by Steve A. Austin
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Apr 23 2007, 02:03 PM)
Yes it was all still soft. It wasn't mud.
What is your evidence that supports ‘soft rock’?
When and what caused it to harden?
QUOTE
If the events which happened at Mt St. Helens did so 3000 years ago and the uniformatarian geologist visited the same gorge in todays time they would more than likely figure that the gorge was carved out by a flow of water. This part would be accurate, except the uniformatarian geologist would also *assume* a very large amount of time (millions of years) was required to carve out the gorge.
I disagree, the formation of the mini grand canyon, is significantly different:
a. Firstly it is of volcanic origin, (the grand canyon is sedimentary) and,
b. the complete absence of any significant layering.
I don’t think a geologist would be fooled for a second.
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Apr 23 2007, 02:13 PM)
The lower lowest level of the Grand Canyon are made up of the Vishu and Zoaroaster rocks which lie below the Unkar Group and the Chuar Group. These pre-flood strata are currently in an inclined position and were raised up as the fountains of the deep opened up. The two sedimentary layers, Unkar and Chuar were deposited as ocean floor which covered the area currently known as Arizona. This sedimentary deposits had accumulated during the time between the creation of the world and the flood of Noah.
The waters of the flood advanced from Nevada through Arizona and New Mexico depositing their sediment. Evidence of this is shown when one looks at the direction of increasing sediment coarseness, direction of increasing bottom sediment and the direction of thinning of sediment cover.
As you examine the strata from nevada towards New Mexico it is possible to divide the area up into six parts. The Mauve Limestones is a lime Mud zone and was the farthest to the west(Nevada). The water here was the deepest and the slowest and consisted up a fine mud facies. The velocity was about <0.5 m/sec. Moving eastward the next exposed area is the clay mud zone of the Bright Angel Shale. This layer is made up of silt size particles that were moving at 0.5 m/sec and are the residue winnowed from the Tapeats Sandstones and the Great Unconformity. <snip>
REF. Mostly from,
Grand Canyon
Monument to Catastrophe
Edited by Steve A. Austin
The waters of the flood advanced from Nevada through Arizona and New Mexico depositing their sediment. Evidence of this is shown when one looks at the direction of increasing sediment coarseness, direction of increasing bottom sediment and the direction of thinning of sediment cover.
As you examine the strata from nevada towards New Mexico it is possible to divide the area up into six parts. The Mauve Limestones is a lime Mud zone and was the farthest to the west(Nevada). The water here was the deepest and the slowest and consisted up a fine mud facies. The velocity was about <0.5 m/sec. Moving eastward the next exposed area is the clay mud zone of the Bright Angel Shale. This layer is made up of silt size particles that were moving at 0.5 m/sec and are the residue winnowed from the Tapeats Sandstones and the Great Unconformity. <snip>
REF. Mostly from,
Grand Canyon
Monument to Catastrophe
Edited by Steve A. Austin
What I can glean from this is that everything below the great unconformity was deposited before the flood, and presumably the rock would be hard, yes?
Above the great conformity we have the Noachian flood deposits, and presumably soft (for a while) yes?
This should produce features showing rapid erosion above the great conformity and somewhat less below, do you agree? Yet the initial meandering path seems to have largely been consistent with erosion over long periods of time. IMO a drainage towards the sea would gently sift the uppermost layer as the level dropped, only until the water had drained to a point below the elevation of the grand canyon could erosion in earnest begin (by which time the bulk of the water will have vanished). Essentially what is needed is a volume of water, post flood, with the energy of the flood.
The particle sizes, makes no sense to me because firstly it wont account for the layering we see, in a flood we will find larger particles the further down we go, and the fine sediments settling out later towards the top. A flood will not discriminate on material that requires different mechanism, eg limestone is basically the remains of marine organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone
sandstone is comprised of eroded rocky material
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone
shale is comprised of mud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale
So how is it possible to have 3 alternating (several times) rock forming processes? Unless this can be explained such a simple model as you have proposed is found severely wanting.
So far we have been concentrating on the basic properties of water dynamics and sedimentary processes, I have yet to begin on the fossil found, or more specifically, the conspicuous absence of fossils of ages younger than 245 million years.
QUOTE(chance @ Apr 23 2007, 10:48 PM)
What is your evidence that supports ‘soft rock’?
When and what caused it to harden?
When and what caused it to harden?
Soft rock? The obvious. Why do you ask?
Wat caused it to harden? ....Time.
I'm even toying with the idea that the pyramid rocks were still slightly soft when mined...buts thats another topic.
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Apr 24 2007, 02:04 PM)
chance>
What is your evidence that supports ‘soft rock’?
When and what caused it to harden?
trilobyte>
a. Soft rock? The obvious. Why do you ask?
b. Wat caused it to harden? ....Time.
c. I'm even toying with the idea that the pyramid rocks were still slightly soft when mined...buts thats another topic.
What is your evidence that supports ‘soft rock’?
When and what caused it to harden?
trilobyte>
a. Soft rock? The obvious. Why do you ask?
b. Wat caused it to harden? ....Time.
c. I'm even toying with the idea that the pyramid rocks were still slightly soft when mined...buts thats another topic.
Re.a Have you ever seen soft rock? What evidence is there that such a substance (re limestone, sandstone, or shale) even exists. Sure there are sandstones that can crumble relatively easily, but has any YEC even investigated how such a substance can form, or is it just presumed to have existed, as a convenience?
Re.b Same as 'a', have experiments been conducted to see if or what can cause the hardening.
Where I’m going with this is, I would like to see if there is any active experimentation from your side of the fence. It’s all well a good saying the rock must have been soft and time hardened it, but that’s not enough, supposing time is not enough? How will you know?
Sure, I've seen "soft rock" ...ever write your name in cement?
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Apr 27 2007, 01:54 PM)
Sure, I've seen "soft rock" ...ever write your name in cement?
Do you think you could make cement under water?
Notwithstanding cement, have you a response that explains the questions I posed to you in post #28, because if your theory cannot explain the layering mechanisms, you should re-evaluate it.
Chance,
The layers were deposited during the flood. After the water drained from the area...then it hardened.
There was no need to make "cement" underwater.
The layers were deposited during the flood. After the water drained from the area...then it hardened.
There was no need to make "cement" underwater.
QUOTE(trilobyte @ Apr 30 2007, 10:42 AM)
trilobyte>
The layers were deposited during the flood. After the water drained from the area...then it hardened.
The layers were deposited during the flood. After the water drained from the area...then it hardened.
Your not being consistent with your own explanation:
Firstly you stated that there are two time periods, according to you, when the rock must have hardened, below and above the great unconformity, yes?
The layers below great unconformity would have had ample time to harden before the flood yes?
So if you think the grand canyon eroded all above the great unconformity, while the rock was soft, how can you account for similar erosion on the presumably hard rock below the great unconformity (especially the granite!).
You have already discounted the retreating flood waters as the cause of the erosion and relied on a lake bursting it’s banks, but this will only work on the soft rock according to your theory, what about all the material below the great unconformity?
Still waiting for your explanation on the layering.
QUOTE(chance @ Apr 29 2007, 01:54 PM)
Do you think you could make cement under water?
Cement will harden underwater as it sets due to a chemical reaction rather than just drying out.
I don't think you can actually mix and pour cement while underwater though.
QUOTE(chance @ Apr 29 2007, 10:50 PM)
Your not being consistent with your own explanation:
Firstly you stated that there are two time periods, according to you, when the rock must have hardened, below and above the great unconformity, yes?
The layers below great unconformity would have had ample time to harden before the flood yes?
So if you think the grand canyon eroded all above the great unconformity, while the rock was soft, how can you account for similar erosion on the presumably hard rock below the great unconformity (especially the granite!).
You have already discounted the retreating flood waters as the cause of the erosion and relied on a lake bursting it’s banks, but this will only work on the soft rock according to your theory, what about all the material below the great unconformity?
Still waiting for your explanation on the layering.
Firstly you stated that there are two time periods, according to you, when the rock must have hardened, below and above the great unconformity, yes?
The layers below great unconformity would have had ample time to harden before the flood yes?
So if you think the grand canyon eroded all above the great unconformity, while the rock was soft, how can you account for similar erosion on the presumably hard rock below the great unconformity (especially the granite!).
You have already discounted the retreating flood waters as the cause of the erosion and relied on a lake bursting it’s banks, but this will only work on the soft rock according to your theory, what about all the material below the great unconformity?
Still waiting for your explanation on the layering.
The great unconformitywas pre-flood.
Now let me send you to a web page that explains a lot of the layering. Take your time. Watch the videos. sedimintation
QUOTE(trilobyte @ May 7 2007, 04:47 AM)
The great unconformitywas pre-flood.
So you stated, yet that means erosion while hard, yes? It also implies a separate sedimentation period, yes? How do you explain such?Sedimentation follows two main principles,
a. big heavy stuff at the bottom, fine partials at the top,
b. the sorting of the principle above, is governed by the turbulence of the water.
Re the article – firstly you should summarise the article in question highlighting the points you think are relevant, the link is to support your argument only.
You should read your own article because it does not support your argument – extracts
QUOTE
As the water slows down, the large grains then drop out, largest to smallest, making a "pile" which grows horizontally. Finally, the fines are the last to drop out because they require the least amount of water velocity, and thus they make up the final layer of fines on top.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it! (speed and density, rule).
So what the good M. E. Clark and H. D. Voss, seem to have concluded is what is already known, at the very best they have replicated local events such as the bend in a stream and tidal effects, nothing more. Stirring things up in a tank follows the exact same sedimentary principles, as was show by the pictures in the web page.
QUOTE
Much to my surprise, it became evident very quickly that liquefaction does not produce layers, it destroys them.
I do need to qualify this statement however: liquefaction did indeed sort (more or less) the sediments by density. However, the resulting "layers" were hardly layers at all; they blended together and if the system was to become lithified (cemented, or hardened into rock), it would be one, thick block. If I saw these layers in the geologic record, they would be interesting and noteworthy, but I wouldn't call them layers; I would call it a layer fining upward.
I do need to qualify this statement however: liquefaction did indeed sort (more or less) the sediments by density. However, the resulting "layers" were hardly layers at all; they blended together and if the system was to become lithified (cemented, or hardened into rock), it would be one, thick block. If I saw these layers in the geologic record, they would be interesting and noteworthy, but I wouldn't call them layers; I would call it a layer fining upward.
So what can we gather from this? Sedimentation follows the two basic principles I stated originally, and, his experiment was limited by the material used. Finally what do you think a liquefaction process is? Do you think it is sedimentation forming? No it is the destruction of layering due to agitation see this wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction
To which the author admits -
QUOTE
Liquefaction doesn't produce layers, it destroys them.
So I am rather perplexed at how you think such experiments support your case, the entire page seem to confirm what is already known. I suggest you take the time to read the article you posted in it’s entirety, then cut an paste the bits you think support young earth, and explain why. In your reply I will require an explanation consistent with the grand canyon, fair enough?
The alternating layers of limestone need to be addressed, as do the fossils!
The page showed that layers are made during flowing water AND formations such as the cocino sandstones were deposited by water and not wind.
The site I linked you to supports the flood. NOT a slow deposit of sediment as called for by the evo-minded.
The site I linked you to supports the flood. NOT a slow deposit of sediment as called for by the evo-minded.
QUOTE(trilobyte @ May 8 2007, 10:18 AM)
The page showed that layers are made during flowing water AND formations such as the cocino sandstones were deposited by water and not wind.
Is that what you think? Wow, I don’t think you have read it very well, at best they got separation by size, and speed of flow, so what so dramatic about that? Nothing new as far as I can see!
Do you see how limestone can form?
Do you see how you get alternating layers, like in the grand canyon?
QUOTE
The site I linked you to supports the flood. NOT a slow deposit of sediment as called for by the evo-minded.
So what if they claim to support the Flood, the experiments prove sedimentation mechanisms no different to that found in nature or in any sedimentation experiment (speed and density). Can you see any other conclusion in that article other than speed or density?
Have they addressed the fossils, that I fear will be a whole different problem, and one they wont be able to replicate.
Remember they are trying to replicate this (twice once above and once below the great unconformity):
20. Kaibab Limestone. brachiopods, coral, molluscs, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth
19. Toroweap Limestone. brachiopods, coral, molluscs, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth
18. Coconino Sandstone. invertebrate tracks, burrows, fossil sand dunes
17. Hermit Shale. ferns, conifers, other plants, reptiles and amphibian tracks.
16. Supai Group. (shale, limestone, sandstone) East - amphibians, reptiles and terrestrial plants. West - marine fossils.
15. Redwall limestone. brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites
14. Temple Butte. Limestone. East - freshwater fish. West - marine fossils
13. Mauv Limestone. trilobites and brachiopods.
12. Bright Angel Shale. . trilobites and brachiopods
11. Tapeats Sandstone. brachiopods, and trilobite
A. PRE Noachian FLOOD, AND CREATION WEEK (Precambrian)
unconformity
Chuar Group. (10 – 6)
10. Sixtymile Formation shale.
9. Kwagunt Formation. .Shale, mudstone, some limestone. Stromatolites.
8. Galeros Formaton. Sandstone, limestone and shale. Stromatolites
7. Nankoweap Formation. Sandstone.
6. Cardenas Lava
Unkar Group. (5 – 2).
5. Dox Sandstone. sandstone, shale. Stromatolites, algae.
4. Shinumo Quartzite. sandstone.
3. Hakatai Shale. shale, sandstone.
2. Bass Formation. Limestone.. stromatolites.
unconformity
1. Vishnu, Zoroaster – Granite.1
What if it was something simple? Is the biblical, worldwide flood (which included volcanic and tectonic activity) followed by a long duration (weeks or months) of water receding, possible?
During the flooding and receding period, currents would carry large amounts of sediment. Volcanic eruptions under the flood would cool and harden in hours, forming lifted rocky areas. The sediment would be deposited by similarity (density, particle size, etc.). This sediment (covered by water) would be soft. As the water receded it would be etched by the flows to the seas. We should find the highest elevations tend to be more rugged, as the softest materials would have been carried away. As elevation decreased the flows would loose speed, depositing more material. The areas closer to sea level should be less firm and have mild terrain.
Any planets come to mind?
Of course this does not prove the biblical account. It does argue for plausibility.
During the flooding and receding period, currents would carry large amounts of sediment. Volcanic eruptions under the flood would cool and harden in hours, forming lifted rocky areas. The sediment would be deposited by similarity (density, particle size, etc.). This sediment (covered by water) would be soft. As the water receded it would be etched by the flows to the seas. We should find the highest elevations tend to be more rugged, as the softest materials would have been carried away. As elevation decreased the flows would loose speed, depositing more material. The areas closer to sea level should be less firm and have mild terrain.
Any planets come to mind?
Of course this does not prove the biblical account. It does argue for plausibility.
Cnance posted:
18. Coconino Sandstone. invertebrate tracks, burrows, fossil sand dunes.
The test showed how the tracks were made in flowing water.
The Evos want us to believe that the sand dunes were dry when deposited.
18. Coconino Sandstone. invertebrate tracks, burrows, fossil sand dunes.
The test showed how the tracks were made in flowing water.
The Evos want us to believe that the sand dunes were dry when deposited.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.