The Grand Canyon, Part II

Mechanical Bliss · #1 19th February 2003, 07:32 PM

This sequel to the other Grand Canyon thread neither stars an Italian-speaking Robert De Niro nor is directed by James Cameron

.

It might seem repetitious, but considering the other thread has become quite long and inundated with a cyclic discussion of laminations in unrelated situations, some might have stopped following the thread (including YECs) who might not have seen and considered this list. It's a list compiled from the discussions in that thread from several posters which list points that clearly refute the notion that a global flooding mechanism can account for the formation of the Grand Canyon. Feel free to comment, edit, and argue about the list:

1. The angular unconformity separating Precambrian from Paleozoic rocks.

2. The existence of metamorphic rocks and igneous intrusions.

3. The existence of basalts from the Cenozoic atop the Grand Canyon and in that vicinity (USGS: http://wwwflag.wr.usgs.gov/GCSympos...ents_table.html&nbsp

4. The stratigraphy of the canyon itself. That is, a global flooding event taking place in 1 year or less cannot account for the stratigraphic distribution of well sorted sediments--not to mention the distinct layering of rock strata which are separated by erosional unconformities and also represent vastly different depositional environments.

5. The chemical rocks in the Grand Canyon (limestones) which would have had to have formed at an unheard of rate.

6. The paleontological data: the fact that we see organisms not only stratified by age, but we also see marine strata with exclusively marine organisms (brachiopods and crinoids that no longer exist today, for example) separated by strata that clearly have terrestrial flora and fauna in them. We also see this distinction by looking at trace fossils (e.g., footprints). This stratification by age and discontinuous representation of marine and terrestrial life are not explanable by your mechanism.

7. The goosenecks, or sharp meanders in the Colorado River, which Rufus indicated and illustrated with several pictures.

8. The fact that the river has eroded lithified rock as evidenced by deltaic deposits at the mouth of the river (and older deposits from when the river flowed in an opposite direction) and that the river has eroded through both metamorphic rock and igneous rock at the base of the canyon, which are crystalline rocks and obviously could not have been unconsolidated sediments, but rather very durable rock.

9. Radiometric age dating of igneous features of the Grand Canyon reveal dates far greater than a mere 6-12 thousand years before present.

10. The presence of paleosols (ancient soils) throughout several layers of the canyon including the Redwall limestone indicating that it was not formed underwater all at one time but rather exposed.

11. Collapsed caves/remnant karst topography.

12. The deposits from the outwash of the Colorado River indicate that it removed lithified rock.

Micaiah · #2 20th February 2003, 12:48 AM

Those who read the first part of the thread will recognise that much of the discussion focussed on the way in which thin layers (called laminae) formed in the walls of the Grand Canyon. YEC's use examples found in nature and laboratory tests to demonstrate how these layers were formed rapidly and under catastrophic conditions.

Though no one in this thread seems to be suggesting the GC laminae were formed as varves, I understand this has been done in the past by other geologists.

So the question remains, how were the various laminae see in the GC wall formed? We're looking specifically here at the Redwall laminae.

Mechanical Bliss · #3 20th February 2003, 01:10 AM

Yesterday at 11:48 PM Micaiah said this in Post #2 
YEC's use examples found in nature and laboratory tests to demonstrate how these layers were formed rapidly and under catastrophic conditions.

No, they don't.

The demonstrations you indicated are:

1. A volcanic eruption.

2. Sand migration on a beach.

These examples have nothing at all to do with the formation of limestone, a chemical rock, as has already been pointed out instead of the other Grand Canyon thread. If you want to discuss this, go back to your other thread where it has already been pointed out that the laminae created in your examples are not even close to being equivalent to the laminae in the limestone. Here, I have posted twelve points that clearly refute the global flood processes that render your argument completely meaningless.

notto · #4 20th February 2003, 03:08 AM

Today at 04:48 AM Micaiah said this in Post #2 (http://www.christianforums.com/showt...198#post664198)

YEC's use examples found in nature and laboratory tests to demonstrate how these layers were formed rapidly and under catastrophic conditions.

But they have failed to show when these layers of mud, sand, and ash will actually turn into ROCK, which of course, is what we actually find in the Grand Canyon.

They also fail to show any layers in the Grand Canyon that are formed of the same material, or lack the fossils in the layers to match their models.

So, I guess all their examples really have going for them in a comparative sense, is that they found a neat process in nature that forms layers in volcanic ash and mud.

wow. that will show them geologists how wrong they are.

Now, on the other hand, mainstream geologist have determined how limestone is formed, have determined where this process is still going on, and are studying an actual, natural process that will form stone over time that is the same as what is actually in the Redwall (limestone). They know that the process will generate limestone, because, guess what is underneath the sediment and mud layers they are studying in places like reefs, barrier islands, and shallow bays - LIMESTONE!!! What a great model!!!

But, there will always seem to be a continuous stream of YEC's that will repeatedly say "LOOK AT THE LAYERS IN THIS ASH AND MUD - THIS PROVES THE GLOBAL FLOOD!" I know, it doesn't make sense to me either.

Micaiah · #5 20th February 2003, 05:22 AM

The following questions are from the previous thread. In spite of all the huff and puff, we've seen very little explanation provided by the OE geologists on how the layers that exist in the Redwall were formed, and examples where that can be seen to occur today. What we seek here is a description in layman to semi technical language. In the last few posts some examples were provided and I am in the process of reviewing them. Since our OE friends like to point ot the importance of scientific credentials, I note that to date I have not seen any scientists mentioned in these articles that link the supposed examples of laminae with the Redwall. I'll continue my search, but am becoming increasingly sceptical that the other side has any explanation of any substance. We just keep getting the same vague dismissals. Notto has already admitted that he cannot answer some of the questions posed.

Okay, so then if this is not how the laminae in the Redwall was formed, give your detailed explanation of how they were formed. At the momemt all I got is a vague reference to the variation in water level due to melting icecaps. How many times did this occur. How many layers were formed each time this occurred? How long did it take for each layer to form? By what mechanism were these layers formed? Can you provide contemporary examples of such layers forming today? To date arguments from old earth geologists have been mainly negative - they have sought to discredit the YEC model of laminae formation with little effort to provide better explanation.

Micaiah · #6 20th February 2003, 06:11 AM

Quote from Steven A Austins book "Monument to Catastrophe" on the lime mud deposits found in the Florida-Bahama areas.

"Whereas many modern lime mud deposits are recognised to be accumulating very slowly, some modern examples of rapid lime mud accummulation are known. Modern hurricanes in the Florida-Bahama area have been observed to move and redeposit large quantities of fine, laminated carbonate mud. Flats above nomal high tide level receive carpets of laminated mud after hurricanes and offshore mud deposits have been observed to form rapidly."

References given include:

M.M. Ball, E.A. Shinn, and K.W. Stockman, "The Geological Effects of Hurricane Donna in South Florida," Journal of Geology 75 1967 583-597.

R.D. Perkins and P. Enos, "Hurricane Betsy in the Florida Bahamas Area - Geological Effects and Comparisons with Hurricane Donna," Journal of Geology 76 1968 710-717

The posts you gave previously referred to formations in the Florida and Bahamas region. I understood you consider these regions to have areas similar to that found in the Redwall. Apparently there is evidence of laminations forming in these muds from catastrophes such as hurricanes. The lime muds found in this area sound similar to that found in the Redwall.

Arikay · #7 20th February 2003, 06:27 AM

a huricane though is a different beast than the flood. A hurican has lots of winds and lots of different forces, however it doesnt dump the amount of water that the flood did.

Based on my math, if only 25% of water came from rain, it would rain 4.4 gallons of water per square foot, per second on the entire earth.
The water level would also rise aprox 27.5 feet per hour. In 18 hours, the earth would have been covered with 500ft of water.
So that redwall needed to form very fast. Much much faster than what a hurican can do.

LewisWildermuth · #8 20th February 2003, 06:35 AM

Okay...

The Redwall limestone was formed during the Mississippian era (about 360 to 320 mya) when the area was for the most part under a shallow sea. Fossils found in the Redwall seem to confirm this. There are at least three major transgression/regression sequences found in the Redwall formation (basically exposure of the seabed then reclimation of the land by the sea). The limestone that makes up the Redwall is a precipitate/skeletal mix.

There are several places where you can go look at modern limestone-type sands and muds forming today like Florida, the Bahamas, Persian Gulf, Australia....

Here are a few links if you want to learn more...

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geos256/a...wald/miss.html

http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/...AR878,00.shtml

notto · #9 20th February 2003, 08:24 AM

Today at 10:11 AM Micaiah said this in Post #6 (http://www.christianforums.com/showt...577#post664577)

Quote from Steven A Austins book "Monument to Catastrophe" on the lime mud deposits found in the Florida-Bahama areas.

"Whereas many modern lime mud deposits are recognised to be accumulating very slowly, some modern examples of rapid lime mud accummulation are known. Modern hurricanes in the Florida-Bahama area have been observed to move and redeposit large quantities of fine, laminated carbonate mud. Flats above nomal high tide level receive carpets of laminated mud after hurricanes and offshore mud deposits have been observed to form rapidly."

References given include:

M.M. Ball, E.A. Shinn, and K.W. Stockman, "The Geological Effects of Hurricane Donna in South Florida," Journal of Geology 75 1967 583-597.

R.D. Perkins and P. Enos, "Hurricane Betsy in the Florida Bahamas Area - Geological Effects and Comparisons with Hurricane Donna," Journal of Geology 76 1968 710-717

The posts you gave previously referred to formations in the Florida and Bahamas region. I understood you consider these regions to have areas similar to that found in the Redwall. Apparently there is evidence of laminations forming in these muds from catastrophes such as hurricanes. The lime muds found in this area sound similar to that found in the Redwall.

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).

This would also not explain the layers of limestone and other rock above and below this layer. Again, you need to actually look at what is there. Your creationist sources are trying to punch small holes in the bigger picture. Nothing you have presented FALSIFIES the mainstream theories. They also fail to explaint the other FALSIFYING evidence we see that lets us determine that the grand canyon was old and was created over a long amount of time.

Why don't you want to discuss his? You seem to be stalling on a particular because you can't explain the general.

How about this? If we concede that there may be a way that the lime sediments in the Redwall were laid down quickly, would you move on (and stop talking about volcanic ash layers)?.

Would you then move on to discuss how YEC explains these layer that were laid down rapidely, turning into solid ROCK in a short amount of time (including other layers other than limestone)?

Would that work to move the discussion forward?

notto · #10 20th February 2003, 08:38 AM

For the sake of clarification.

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?

Can we move beyond sedimentation in the Redwall to a discussion of the processes required to turn sediments into ROCK?

Can we move beyond sedimentation in the Redwall to a discussion of the formations such as goose necks in river that point to slow erosion?

Can we just move on now?