How to Date the Grand Canyon: Go With the Flow

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.

Are mammilary coatings formed on surfaces which in contact with water for a prolongued period of time?

Seems so.
Can Molal elaborate, maybe? How are mammilary coatings formed, exactly? They sound like precipitates that form on rocks marking the surface of the water table. I doubt very much if you would see these forming in the turbulent waters that, according to the neo-creationists, carved the Grand Canyon.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.

So I have to ask again: How do neo-creationists explain the presence of mammilary precipitates in the caves of the Grand Canyon?

Actually Mallon hit the nail on the head! Mammillary coatings are coatings on sedimentary particles that consists of carbonate precipitate.

Here are a couple of links to articles, abstracts, etc. for further reading:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../319/5868/1377
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=87984356
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k031t78045vv8423/

Enjoy!

Oh right, so they're speleothems,

*drags memory back 10 years to A-level geography*

So basically they're formed by slow moving water which contains calcium carbonate or something similar, and when that water comes into contact with air as it would do at the water table, a chemical reaction occurs causing precipitation of the calcium carbonate. The fact that these coatings are found at different levels of the canyon, from the highest to the lowest is evidence of a slow and gradual erosion and lowering of the level of the river.

If a flood had caused the canyon to form in a very short space of time I would expect that there would be no evidence of ancient water tables in the lower parts of the canyon, but only in the highest caves

It's now up to the creationists here to attempt to explain how these mamilliary coatings could form over days/weeks.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.

How is this question relevant to the origin of the Grand Canyon? Every cave has some carbonate deposits on its roof. It has nothing to do with the mechanical process of erosional.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.