The Grand Canyon, Part II

notto · #11 20th February 2003, 08:58 AM

Features of the Redwall that falsify the rapid deposition of sediment during an ongoing flood.

Park Science
"Scientists have derived information about the Redwall through the identification and study of foraminifera, crinoid, coral, cephalopod, brachiopod, and other fossils from this formation. Additionally, scientists have also been interested in the formation because its upper member, the Horseshoe Mesa Member, was exposed to the atmosphere for an extended period of time (approximately 325 million years ago) before the deposition of the overlying Supai Formation sediment. During the time the Redwall Formation was exposed to the atmosphere (subaerially exposed), the limestone was severely altered by chemical dissolution and reprecipitation and developed a recognizable karst (limestone) topography replete with caves, caverns, sinkholes, chert-lag breccias, red-residual soil, and related solution features. Detailed and ongoing research on karst features (Kenny 1989) has produced new insights into information about the ancient terrestrial climate (Kenny in press)."

Basically, this is saying that ther was erosion in the limestone (ROCK!!!) before the materials above it were layed down such as caves and caverns. These were later filled in by the sediments above the limestone.

This shows that :
The Redwall layer was turned to ROCK and was exposed to rain and experienced runoff before the layers above it were layed down. It was at one point the top of the grand canyon and was not underwater. This cannot be explained in a short period, flood model.

This also shows how important it is to look at the layers above and below a formation to get the real picture of how it was created.

Mechanical Bliss · #12 20th February 2003, 11:33 AM

Today at 07:38 AM notto said this in Post #10

Can we just move on now?

Sadly not, it seems.

The purpose of this thread was to move on from that ridiculous discussion of laminations. Volcanic ash and sand on a beach are not only different compositions themselves, but have nothing to do with limestone. I've repeated this so many times.

Lewis also brought up things clearly given to Micaiah in the other thread: three transgressive/regressive sea level changes, fossils and the modern day example of the Bahamas (apparently he overlooked the fact that we already gave present day examples of how limestones like those in the Grand Canyon form at a rate of only a few centimeters per year). Why persist on ignoring what we post?

Furthermore Micaiah brings up the "lime mud" scenario again where the sediments are already present to simply be moved around. Not only is this not comparable to the Grand Canyon in the sense that the sediments were redeposited, but the Redwall limestone is not completely micritic limestone. A great deal of it is sparite; that is, a coarser grained limestone than simply lime muds. Again, that scenario obviously has nothing to do with the Redwall limestone.

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss laminations again because otherwise it turns into the same thread as the other. Micaiah, if you want to discuss laminations, go back to the other thread where that discussion was still going on and I answered your posts, and you haven't replied.

This thread is to discuss the twelve points in the opening post. The laminae discussion has been done over so many times it's like beating a dead horse. Furthermore the laminae discussion is entirely irrelavent in the face of the twelve points in the opening post that argue against the notion that the Grand Canyon is formed in a Young Earth global flooding scenario. The formation of loose lime muds, volcanic ash, and beach sands are not the same as the Redwall limestone.

Arikay · #13 20th February 2003, 03:35 PM

definatly been beaten to death.

However, I want to know how did the redwall form, in the major downpoor that was the flood?
27.5 feet of water an hour.

troodon · #14 20th February 2003, 09:44 PM

Today at 04:24 AM notto said this in Post #9

Micah, we are talking about 300 feet and hundreds of square miles. Where did the sediment come from (you'll notice that the Austin piece says REDEPOSIT)? In all of the earth, that much carbinate could not be created in few thousand years before the flood. Where did all of the creatures come from that generated the lime and calcium? There is no evidence of transport of the magnitude you discuss in the Redwall. This theory would also not explain the life we find there and the fossils in it (the redeposits from a hurricane would ot have fossils throughout it of any particular size from a particular group of animals - something which another source you used in past mentions specifically).

Hey, that's a nice argument

Micaiah · #15 21st February 2003, 03:04 AM

This thread is getting long now and I propose we change to a new thread to investigate the processes you blokes say are responsible for the formation of the Redwall, and compare them with the processes suggested by YEC's.

What do you think?

I thought we began this new thread after my suggestion above. I have more to post on this subject. Others have raised some points like where did all the material come from, and where did some of the coarser grain limestones come from. I also have more to post on the mechanism by which the layers formed under the hurricane conditions which remains something of a mystery. It has been suggested that in a global flood situation, the conditions would be less turbulant than in a hurricane. While it is speculative, I don't have too much trouble imagining the conditions during the flood could have been very turbulent at times. I would like to investigate these matters further but recognise some are getting weary and uncomfortable with this topic, and so will move on. I may post some of the other material occasionally.

Notto made the following comment above. I hope it reflects a general acceptance among others as well.

I will concede that in itself, the accumulation of sediments in itself cannot falsify either YEC or mainstream geology if it will move the discussion forward.

Can we now move on to discuss the other pieced of evidence that FASLSIFY the YEC view of the grand canyon?

Arikay · #16 21st February 2003, 06:22 AM

well, I really have no clue how turbulent the flood would be. However, it wouldnt take long for the entire area to become covered in water. Once you drop a bit below the surface, a surface storm doesnt effect the currents underneath.
It would take about 18 hours to cover the area in 500ft of water. So the redwall would probably need to form very quickly before it got completly covered with water. Once that happens, the conditions would become much calmer.

notto · #17 21st February 2003, 08:45 AM

Today at 07:04 AM Micaiah said this in Post #15 (http://www.christianforums.com/showt...797#post666797)

I would like to investigate these matters further but recognise some are getting weary and uncomfortable with this topic, and so will move on. I may post some of the other material occasionally.

Does this mean that we can start talking about ROCK formation and ROCK erosion now instead of sediment deposition? You have yet to present the YEC explanation for rapid ROCK formation and erosion. Until you address this issue, the 3 mechanisms you have presented so far have little explanative power to explain the Redwall or the Grand Canyon. You are still talking about mud.

If you would like to continue to discuss the Redwall, why don't we discuss the features of it that falsify one of the two theories we are discussing. Since you seem to believe (and I will concede to move the discussion forward, but do not agree that your models adequately explain the phenomena) that you have amply shown sediment deposit mechanisms that can explain the deposition of materials, it seems pointless to discuss this any further because it cannot be used as falsification for either theory. It has nothing to do with feeling uncomfortable discussing it. It has caused an impass in the discussion so why don't we move on? For the sake of the current discussion, let us agree that neither side can use it as evidence to independently falsify the other side.

Do you have anything to discuss that falsifies the old earth theory? Would you care to discuss the evidence that has been presented to you that falsifies the young earth flood explainaion of the Grand Canyon?

notto · #18 21st February 2003, 09:00 AM

Evidence that falsifies the deposit of the sediment in the Redwall from transport due to high current or "hurricane" like conditions.

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm
"Fossils in the Redwall include some primitive cephalopods, Spiriferid brachiopods, corals (Syringopora is common), crinoids, gastropods, bivalves, blastoids, bryozoans, trilobites and trilobite fragments, conodonts, and some foraminifera. McKee and Gutschick, 1969, pp. 104 & 554, describe several layers of in situ mats of calcerous algae within the Redwall. Each of the four members of the Redwall contain unique conodont microfossils which, along with foraminifera, allow Redwall deposition to be correlated with other formations. A conodont named Gnathodes typicus is found in the Whitmore Wash member and not in the other layers. Scoliognathus anchoralis and Dolignathus latus are unique to the Thunder Springs member. Gnathodus texanus is found in the Mooney Falls member only, and the conodont Taphrognathus variarus is limited to the Horseshoe Mesa member."

- in situ mats of algae cannot be transported and deposited due to "hurricane" like mechanisms. They must have grown in place on top of the sediment below them and before the sediment above them was in place (in water shallow enough to allow them sunlight

).

- The presence of unique fossils in each of the 4 layers in the formation point to the sediment coming from different geologic times. How could the distinct layering of unique microfossils (of the same size) be explained with rapid transport of sediment to the area without a single mix-up?

(I hope discussing these observations in the Redwall doesn't make anyone feel uncomfortable.

)

Mechanical Bliss · #19 21st February 2003, 11:21 AM

Today at 02:04 AM Micaiah said this in Post #15

I thought we began this new thread after my suggestion above.

Not really. This thread was begun to address the twelve points in the opening post that falsify the Young Earth Creationists' global flooding mechanism based upon evidence we see at the Grand Canyon. My thought was that, considering the discussion of laminae was still going on in the other thread (questions were raised, you didn't answer), that discussion could remain there instead of inundating another thread with it.

It has been suggested that in a global flood situation, the conditions would be less turbulant than in a hurricane. While it is speculative, I don't have too much trouble imagining the conditions during the flood could have been very turbulent at times.

A turbulent flood cannot account for the types of marine life we find preserved in the Redwall limestone. Turbulent flooding cannot account for the distinct stratification of the Canyon into separate layers of different rock types, with well sorted particles, separated by different types of unconformities, and the fact that there are layers with a terrestrial origin interbedded with those of a marine origin (including terrestrial features such as paleosols present in marine layers such as the Redwall limestone).

And the only reason people are getting weary of that topic of laminae is because it's as if we're constantly repeating ourselves. You have presented no examples that serve as propoer analogues to the Redwall limestone. Two more things:

1. The Redwall limestone is not all there is to the Grand Canyon. There's a lot more that has to be explained than just that. In any case, you've falsified nothing about mainstream geology.

2. There are twelve points in this thread, some of which actually exist in the Redwall limestone itself, which falsify your mechanism, but you have not addressed them. This thread was designed for that purpose.

notto · #20 21st February 2003, 11:40 AM

Geology Terminology and Definitions Site
(A bit heavy on the banner ads but no popup ads, and a great resource for understanding the terminology used in the specifics of this geology discussion)

http://www.webref.org/geology/geology.htm

For example:

meander: (1) Turn or sharp bend in stream's course. (2) To turn, or bend, sharply. Applied to stream courses in geological usage.

karst topography: Irregular topography characterized by sink holes, streamless valleys, and streams that disappear underground - all developed by action of surface and underground water in soluble rock such as limestone.

unconformity: Buried erosion surface separating two rock masses, older exposed to erosion for long interval of time before deposition of younger. If older rocks were deformed and not horizontal at time of subsequent deposition, surface of separation is angular unconformity. If older rocks remained essentially horizontal during erosion, surface separating them from younger rocks is called disconformity. Unconformity that develops between massive igneous or metamorphic rocks exposed to erosion and then covered by sedimentary rocks is called nonconformity.

soil: Superficial material that forms at earth's surface as result of organic and inorganic processes. Soil varies with climate, plant and animal life, time, slope of land, and parent material.

paleosol: Soil formed in past environment; often buried.

lithification: Process by which unconsolidated rock-forming materials are converted into consolidated or coherent state.