How to Date the Grand Canyon: Go With the Flow

[Mallon]

This was posted in the CvE forum, but I thought I would post it here, too, given that the Grand Canyon has been a topic of interest here lately.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/commentary/dissection/2008/03/dissection_0307

An exerpt:

Three geologists from the University of New Mexico have explored caves along the Grand Canyon, ranging from the very bottom to the rim. In this week's issue of Science, they report that the highest caves have mammilary coatings dating back about 17 million years, and the lowest ones date to about 800,000 years. And all the caves between the top and bottom have the intermediate ages you’d expect. By measuring the distance from the rim to the caves, the geologists were then able to estimate how fast the Colorado River carved the canyon. The downstream end of the canyon formed first, and only later did the upstream end catch up. These new measurements show that even as the river sank down into the earth, the earth itself rose, lifted by hot rock welling up through the crust.

I guess my question for those people who argue for the Grand Canyon being carved by the Flood is this:
I understand you don't agree with the dating method used (although the dates given above are quite consistent), but how can there be evidence for successive, extinct water tables in the Grand Canyon if it was carved out in the blink of an eye?

 

[juvenissun]

This was posted in the CvE forum, but I thought I would post it here, too, given that the Grand Canyon has been a topic of interest here lately.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/commentary/dissection/2008/03/dissection_0307

An exerpt:


I guess my question for those people who argue for the Grand Canyon being carved by the Flood is this:
I understand you don't agree with the dating method used (although the dates given above are quite consistent), but how can there be evidence for successive, extinct water tables in the Grand Canyon if it was carved out in the blink of an eye?

Current water table or ancient water table?
Water table or water tables?

I think you do not really mean water table, do you?

 

[NathanCGreen]

And what of Canyon Lake Gorge in Texas, huh?

That was carved out in three days! On a mini-scale (compared to THE FLOOD), for sure, but real, as opposed to evolutionary fantasy land.

 

[Assyrian]

Any mammilary coatings in Canyon Lake Gorge? You see there is not much point in in looking at Canyon Lake Gorge if it doesn't provide the sort of evidence geologists use in the Grand canyon to show how long it took to form.

With the Grand Canyon, it is not just how long the canyon took to be carved out, but how long the rock itself took to be layed down. The canyon was carved out over a span of 17 million years, but the strata it it cut through took almost 2 billion years to form. Does Canyon Lake show rock was formed in three days which appears to date over many millions of years when measured geologists?

 

[Mallon]

And what of Canyon Lake Gorge in Texas, huh?

That was carved out in three days!

So what does it have to do with the Grand Canyon?
As Assyrian asked, does the Canyon Lake Gorge have evidence of successive water tables in the form of mammilary coatings?
Sure, it's possible to carve out a gorge like this in a matter of days. But there's good evidence that the deposition and carving of the Grand Canyon took much, much longer than that. So you don't get to cite the CLG is a viable model for the Grand Canyon. That hypothesis has been rejected.

On a mini-scale (compared to THE FLOOD), for sure, but real, as opposed to evolutionary fantasy land.

What in the world does the carving of a canyon have to do with evolution? Methinks you're the one fantasizing.

 

[Molal]

Current water table or ancient water table?
Water table or water tables?

I think you do not really mean water table, do you?

Given that a water table exists and is fluid over time leaving tracers of movement, water table would be singular.

One can have many potentiometric surfaces; however, which could be defined as water tables

 

[MinervaMac]

So what does it have to do with the Grand Canyon?
As Assyrian asked, does the Canyon Lake Gorge have evidence of successive water tables in the form of mammilary coatings?
Sure, it's possible to carve out a gorge like this in a matter of days. But there's good evidence that the deposition and carving of the Grand Canyon took much, much longer than that. So you don't get to cite the CLG is a viable model for the Grand Canyon. That hypothesis has been rejected.


What in the world does the carving of a canyon have to do with evolution? Methinks you're the one fantasizing.

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

 

[juvenissun]

Given that a water table exists and is fluid over time leaving tracers of movement, water table would be singular.

One can have many potentiometric surfaces; however, which could be defined as water tables

If so, what does " successive, extinct water tables in the Grand Canyon" in the OP mean?

How do we see "extinct" water table?

 

[Molal]

If so, what does " successive, extinct water tables in the Grand Canyon" in the OP mean?

How do we see "extinct" water table?

I was agreeing with you Juv.

I do not believe that the phrase successive, extinct water tables is accurate. I believe we would be able to see mineral markers within the quifer which would provide data as to the water elevation through time. Each one could represent an "extinct water table".

But I still think the phrase and terminology is erroneous.

 

[Molal]

If so, what does " successive, extinct water tables in the Grand Canyon" in the OP mean?

How do we see "extinct" water table?

I was agreeing with you Juv.

I do not believe that the phrase successive, extinct water tables is accurate. I believe we would be able to see mineral markers within the quifer which would provide data as to the water elevation through time. Each one could represent an "extinct water table".

But I still think the phrase and terminology is erroneous.

 

[Assyrian]

...from the mammilary coatings

 

[Molal]

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=45323538&postcount=4

 

[Molal]

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=45323538&postcount=4

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[Molal]

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.

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/content/abstract/319/5868/1377
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87984356
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k031t78045vv8423/

Enjoy!

 

[Mallon]

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

 

[juvenissun]

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

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.

 

[MinervaMac]

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/content/abstract/319/5868/1377
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=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.

 

[Molal]

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.

Well done MinervaMac! An excellent description.

reps

 

[Molal]

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.

You didn't read the references.....if you had, you would understand what we are talking about (not necessarily caves).