My Colorado Challenge

[[serious]]

I've addressed the meanderings before, but I'll do it again here.

Psalm 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
Psalm 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
Psalm 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

When the Flood was over, and it was time for the waters to go away, God didn't just blow them off the Earth.

Instead, He ordered the waters to go to a "placed founded for them" (rendezvous point) by going "up by the mountains" and "down by the valleys."

In other words, they meandered their way to a rendezvous point and were siphoned off the Earth.

Notice the serpentine etchings?

The earth bears marks of Satan having been responsible for God sending the Flood.

Just a theory of mine.

It doesn't say anything about meandering.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't say anything about meandering.

But the photograph does; and a picture is worth a thousand words.

QV Psalm 19

 

[Paul Finch]

Including every meander?

They refuse to talk about the meanders for them they don't exist.

 

[[serious]]

But the photograph does; and a picture is worth a thousand words.

QV Psalm 19

Literally no idea what your argument here is. it really looks like "doesn't make sense given the evidence, bible says nothing about it, but I like the idea so a miracle makes me right"

 

[SkyWriting]

6093 feet up from the riverbed.

Standing up there at the top, looking over the edge, way down there at the Colorado River.

Wouldn't you expect it to be wider up there, than down at the bottom?

I certainly would.

It's basic physics.

I have wondered why canyons do have a large percentage of virtual walls if the lower layers would be much more compacted over time and resistant to erosion. Evidently my assumption about lower layers being "tougher" after millions of years of weight is wrong, as well as what people say about how diamonds are formed. I'd think the river would be running on a diamond surface. Or a notably harder surface anyway.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Really?

Suppose the Grand Canyon came first ... then the Colorado River?

That would still be God being deceptive. Canyon's are formed by rivers. You can't have a canyon form without a river.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But not narrower than the river itself ... correct?

The river width depends on how flat and hard the base layer for the river bed is as well as the flow volume, so it's quite possible for the river to be wider at the bottom than the canyon width at the top - although this is less likely because it would need the canyon walls to be soft layers sandwiched between very hard layers top and bottom, and the longer it takes for the canyon to be formed, the more likely it would be for weathering to widen the top layer.

But on the other hand, underground rivers can carve out huge caverns with no gap at the top at all...

 

[Colter]

The Grand Canyon is basically a giant sink hole with a river running through it. It's explained using "drip theory" which has to do with what's going on undernieth the Colorado Platue.

http://www.livescience.com/30378-grand-canyon-age-formation-colorado-plateau-uplift.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 186468 View attachment 186467 The Grand Canyon is basically a giant sink hole with a river running through it. It's explained using "drip theory" which has to do with what's going on undernieth the Colorado Platue.

http://www.livescience.com/30378-grand-canyon-age-formation-colorado-plateau-uplift.html

It sounds like you are trying to claim that the Grand Canyon is an example of Karst Topgoraphy, and I would have to say that it clearly is not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kars

And I have never heard of "drip theory" nor can I find anything on it in the web.

 

[Colter]

It sounds like you are trying to claim that the Grand Canyon is an example of Karst Topgoraphy, and I would have to say that it clearly is not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kars

And I have never heard of "drip theory" nor can I find anything on it in the web.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6138/1283.full

 

[Colter]

It sounds like you are trying to claim that the Grand Canyon is an example of Karst Topgoraphy, and I would have to say that it clearly is not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kars

And I have never heard of "drip theory" nor can I find anything on it in the web.

More on "drip" theory:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7344/full/nature10001.html

 

[Colter]

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 186481

Your articles seem to be an attempt to explain the uplift that formed the plateau. But it is a rather big error to call the Grand canyon itself a "giant sinkhole". The Canyon is an erosional structure. Formed by running water eroding the surface. The uplift appears to be the root cause of that erosion. But what happened deep inside the Earth is not what gave the canyon its ultimate form.

As I said the term "sinkhole" implied Karst topography, which is formed by the dissolving of limestone and dolomite below the surface. That was not what formed the Grand Canyon at all.

 

[Chesterton]

Okay, I can defeat the challenge, using the weapon that can defeat anything - Political Correctness.

Your challenge is species-ist and racist. It's oppressively human-centric because there are bats in the canyon. They're usually upside down so the canyon would be narrower at the top for them. And it's racist because, similarly...Australians.

 

[[serious]]

Okay, I can defeat the challenge, using the weapon that can defeat anything - Political Correctness.

Your challenge is species-ist and racist. It's oppressively human-centric because there are bats in the canyon. They're usually upside down so the canyon would be narrower at the top for them. And it's racist because, similarly...Australians.

I think you're looking for the politics subforum.

 

[Colter]

Your articles seem to be an attempt to explain the uplift that formed the plateau. But it is a rather big error to call the Grand canyon itself a "giant sinkhole". The Canyon is an erosional structure. Formed by running water eroding the surface. The uplift appears to be the root cause of that erosion. But what happened deep inside the Earth is not what gave the canyon its ultimate form.

As I said the term "sinkhole" implied Karst topography, which is formed by the dissolving of limestone and dolomite below the surface. That was not what formed the Grand Canyon at all.

I see your point, sink hole isn't the right term.

 

[durangodawood]

It would be distinguishable in form in that it wouldn't have all those meanders.

Try pulling apart a peice of clay to form something like this

Nice!

I boated right through there on a little inflatable kayak.
A 5 day trip.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ya ... it's basic physics.

That's why I'm struggling with it.

Albeit, I know what I'm getting at ... you guys don't.

Not yet, anyway.

If the Grand Canyon was formed when God pulled Eden (Pangaea) apart in Peleg's time, how would it be indistinguishable in form (wider at the top, narrower at the bottom) from what it looks like today?

It would be a single, straightish tear running the length of the entire continent (rather like ripping a sheet of paper in half), rather than the meandering mishmash of twists and turns occupying a single localised area (which it currently is).

 

[AV1611VET]

It would be a single, straightish tear running the length of the entire continent (rather like ripping a sheet of paper in half), rather than the meandering mishmash of twists and turns occupying a single localised area (which it currently is).

I disagree.

For the U.S. to be torn in half like a sheet of paper, it would have to have 1) already be the continent it is, 2) grasped on both ends and torn.

Kinda like taking New York and California by the hands and just pulling apart.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I disagree.

For the U.S. to be torn in half like a sheet of paper, it would have to have 1) already be the continent it is, 2) grasped on both ends and torn.

Kinda like taking New York and California by the hands and just pulling apart.

Right -- now take that thinking and apply it on a larger, not smaller, scale.