Geologic Proof of an old earth creation.

[Daniel Martinovich]

Looking at this cross section of a location in the Grand Canyon.

1. What we are looking at first, at the bottom we see limestone, which is rock that is formed by the bodies of early life falling to the bottom of deep oceans.
2. This rock is covered by other sedimentary layers.
3. The surface raises above sea level. It is then covered by lava formations that were laid down on dry land by volcanic activity.
4. Then, the volcanic rock was worn down and shows evidence of vegetation.
5. Then the volcanic rock was covered over by more sedimentary layers.
6. The next occurrence would be a crustal uplifting causing the layers to become diagonal.
7. The diagonal rock was in the form of mountains which were then eroded away leveling the formation.
8. Then more sedimentary rocks were laid down, some of which were limestone indicating the surface has again submerged below the ocean.

Many young earth creationists will state that all these formations occurred over a couple months during Noah's flood.

Here is the issue.
We see layers of sedimentary rock including limestone(life), followed by a dry-land layer of lava, followed by erosion and vegetation, followed by more sedimentary layers, followed by crustal upheaval forming diagonal layers, followed by the erosion of those layers down flat, followed by more sedimentary layers (including limestone, again life beneath an ocean), and finally back to the current dry earth of southwest USA. There is simply no way that this history could be formed during a 120-day flood. We can only conclude that all of these formations were made over a very long period of time, long before Adam and Eve were made in the Garden of Eden.

View attachment 310133

Something is missing as far as i know. There and everywhere else i have traveled in north America. There are no canyons from “hundreds of millions of years ago” filled with sediment. If these layers represent 100’s of millions of years then surely in that amount of time a canyon would have been carved through them at some point only to be filled by the next cataclysmic event that bury’s the layers and canyon.

 

[Job 33:6]

Something is missing as far as i know. There and everywhere else i have traveled in north America. There are no canyons from “hundreds of millions of years ago” filled with sediment. If these layers represent 100’s of millions of years then surely in that amount of time a canyon would have been carved through them at some point only to be filled by the next cataclysmic event that bury’s the layers and canyon.

I have to retort here. I must ask, why do you think there would be a prehistoric canyon filled with sediment if the primary definition of a canyon is a place in which sediments are eroded out of?

And dare I ask this next question, which really is a more important question than the first: if a canyon were to be filled in with sediment, where exactly do you propose such sediment would come from? If you would like, I could answer these questions but it would probably be best for you to ponder them beforehand.

And I suppose to answer the question, such erosional features do exist in the earth. We call them unconformities, or in your particular case, disconformities. Such features are actually quite common and such prehistoric valleys range in shape and size.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have to retort here. I must ask, why do you think there would be a prehistoric canyon filled with sediment if the primary definition of a canyon is a place in which sediments are eroded out of?

And dare I ask this next question, which really is a more important question than the first: if a canyon were to be filled in with sediment, where exactly do you propose such sediment would come from? If you would like, I could answer these questions but it would probably be best for you to ponder them beforehand.

And I suppose to answer the question, such erosional features do exist in the earth. We call them unconformities, or in your particular case, disconformities. Such features are actually quite common and such prehistoric valleys range in shape and size.

Here is a cross section of the state of Illinois. And if we examine the figure closely, we see many subterranean erosional valley's and buried chasms.

To fill in a canyon, typically sediment must come from the walls of the canyon itself, meaning that in order to fill a canyon in, you have to destroy the canyon itself in the process. And with that said, subterranean canyons won't typically be as deep as something like the grand canyon which is young and relatively un-eroded and "new". But such underground/buried erosional canyon's are found, none the less.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I have to retort here. I must ask, why do you think there would be a prehistoric canyon filled with sediment if the primary definition of a canyon is a place in which sediments are eroded out of?

And dare I ask this next question, which really is a more important question than the first: if a canyon were to be filled in with sediment, where exactly do you propose such sediment would come from? If you would like, I could answer these questions but it would probably be best for you to ponder them beforehand.

And I suppose to answer the question, such erosional features do exist in the earth. We call them unconformities, or in your particular case, disconformities. Such features are actually quite common and such prehistoric valleys range in shape and size.

Why would’t there be prehistoric canyons filled with the same multiple layers of sediment and limestone you see in a recently carved canyon if we are talking 100’s of millions of years?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Here is a cross section of the state of Illinois. And if we examine the figure closely, we see many subterranean erosional valley's and buried chasms.

To fill in a canyon, typically sediment must come from the walls of the canyon itself, meaning that in order to fill a canyon in, you have to destroy the canyon itself in the process. And with that said, subterranean canyons won't typically be as deep as something like the grand canyon which is young and relatively un-eroded and "new". But such underground/buried erosional canyon's are found, none the less.

View attachment 312457

Im looking at this on my phone. Although i can somewhat see in it what your referring to; I’d have to see a bigger picture with a little more explanation. Illinois is glacier carved with lots of glacier and loom deposits if I'm not mistaken. A bit different of a scenario that i would have to examine and think on a while.

 

[Job 33:6]

Im looking at this on my phone. Although i can somewhat see in it what your referring to; I’d have to see a bigger picture with a little more explanation. Illinois is glacier carved with lots of glacier and loom deposits if I'm not mistaken. A bit different of a scenario that i would have to examine and think on a while.

I could provide more examples if you would like.

I'd you lookup disconformities, you can find prehistoric valleys just about everywhere. They're just buried and so it's difficult to see them without subsurface mapping.

Though, as noted above, if a canyon were to be filled in, it would be filled in by its own walls. And so to fill in a canyon, you would have to essentially destroy the canyon in the process. And so subterranean canyons probably won't be as deep as the grand canyon, although I suppose if I searched hard enough I might fight examples of exceptionally deep prehistoric canyons.

 

[Job 33:6]

I could provide more examples if you would like.

I'd you lookup disconformities, you can find prehistoric valleys just about everywhere. They're just buried and so it's difficult to see them without subsurface mapping.

Though, as noted above, if a canyon were to be filled in, it would be filled in by its own walls. And so to fill in a canyon, you would have to essentially destroy the canyon in the process. And so subterranean canyons probably won't be as deep as the grand canyon, although I suppose if I searched hard enough I might fight examples of exceptionally deep prehistoric canyons.

But it's also fair to note that the reason canyons are canyons is because sediment is being removed from them, and so it's not necessarily a reasonable question to ask why there are or are not canyons that have been filled in. It's almost counter intuitive.

If we broaden in the question to any sort of erosional feature that has been filled in, then such features exist everywhere. Such as with the cross section above where you have glaciers that have carved out a piece of land, and it was filled in and then later buried by flat layers over top forming an angular unconformity.

These features are very common.

I think the key to understanding this too, is to understand why gorges and canyons form to begin with. These features form because land is uplifted around bodies of water. And so the water gets lifted up, and thus begins cutting into the rock as it tries to get back to sea level.

But what also comes with uplift is increased erosional pressures from things like wind, gravity and ice as well, and so the canyon begins with water, but eventually over time the entire Grand canyon itself will be gone. And it may take a hundred million or 200 million years or more years after the canyon has completely stopped uplifting.

But what you end up with is a situation where if enough time passes, the entire canyon itself will be gone. Or the rocks will be recycled by subduction. You won't ever find such features in precambrian layers, the rocks are just too old and they've all been melted and subducted and recycled. Or at least in most cases, there are some instances of pre-cambrian sedimentary rocks but it's far more likely to just find ancient metamorphosed/flattened rocks.

And so that's really important to understand too, is that there is a rock cycle just like a water cycle. So you have a window of time in which there actually can be canyons to see.

You can also consider the age of the Rocky mountains versus the age of the Appalachian mountains. The Rocky mountains are of course much more jagged and tall and spiky. The Appalachian mountains are a little more worn down and rounded and rolling. And this is because of that Rocky mountains are much younger. Less than 100 million years old, which is why you have these extravagant features out west.

The Appalachian mountains on the other hand really are a combination of multiple mountain chains, some dating back 470 million years, another portion dating around 400 million years and then another portion dating back some 270ish million years.

And so you can see just by the passage of a hundred million years that features are just washed away in time. And the Grand canyon will eventually erode into nothing as well. Or it will be recycled, Or it'll become a shallower or canyon and won't be as extravagant and it'll get buried and disappear underneath more flat layers, Just like the erosional valleys in Illinois.

 

[Job 33:6]

And here's another thing worth considering, as the Grand canyon erodes away from the top down, the sediment doesn't really just fill in the canyon, rather the sediment washes out to a sedimentary basin south of California. In order for the sediment to fill The canyon itself, the river would have to stop flowing. And so for that reason, we also wouldn't really expect canyons to typically fill in.

One thing you can do though is you can look at prehistoric continental shelves and clastic wedges where sediment has made its way offshore into the ocean.

So for example in the above cross section, this is a mesozoic continental shelf. So you see various individual groupings of sediment that has flown into this basin and collected over millions of years. The features and the canyons and the mountains that eroded to become the sediments in that basin, those canyons and mountains no longer exist, they've been broken down into sediment and washed into these basins downstream.

The Acadian mountains, and the mountains of the taconic orogeny, these mountains are heavily eroded and buried. We can see where these mountains used to be a long time ago based on the angles and directions of bedding underground.

But just like any uplifted feature, canyons also erode away just the same. And they'll just look like something like the above cross-section where you have these dipping strata that are just flat and eroded off the top.

But we know that they used to be there. We know that there used to be canyons in certain places or gorges or mountains in certain places or rivers in certain places. Or even glaciers in certain places as noted above with the Illinois cross section.

And in above cross section you can see inference of where mountains used to be based on the angles of their layers. It's very common to find things called anticlines while looking at surface maps, because you can look at the stripes of folding strata that's eroded off of the top much like in the above cross section. Just Google the difference between a sincline and an anticline and it'll make sense. And any gorges that used to be on those mountains on the side of them, they're all gone. If you've ever gone hiking on the sides of mountains into gorgeous such as those of the Shenandoah, you could understand how if the entire mountain itself were to erode away, so too would any canyons on them.

The Pennsylvania Grand canyon only exists because it is a part of the Appalachian mountain chain, but what happens if the entire mountain chain erodes away? The canyon would also. And there's nothing that would fill the canyon in, because the canyon is already at a high elevation. It would take something higher than the mountains to fill in a gorge on the side of a mountain. But of course as those gorgeous and canyons were filled in, the mountain itself would have to erode away into nothing.

And so you couldn't really find a canyon filled with itself. Because if it was filled with itself, then it would no longer be a canyon. The walls would have to come down to fill it.

And if your mountain chain dates back half a billion years, You're left with a situation where you either have something like the wissahickon valley, or the alternative you have the underlying precambrian metamorphic schist. You would be hard pressed to find something old enough to be buried, yet still young enough to not be recycled.

Anyway, needless to say, your questions are interesting, but there are some logical complications behind them.

Imagine building a sand castle, and inside the sand castle there's a bedroom, and you ask the question of why nobody has an instance where the bedroom has been filled in yet the castle still stands. It would take a bigger adjacent castle to fill a smaller castle. But what would it be bigger than the mountains in which the canyons already stand? And what would keep the sediment from flowing out the castle doors and into the ocean?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I could provide more examples if you would like.

I'd you lookup disconformities, you can find prehistoric valleys just about everywhere. They're just buried and so it's difficult to see them without subsurface mapping.

Though, as noted above, if a canyon were to be filled in, it would be filled in by its own walls. And so to fill in a canyon, you would have to essentially destroy the canyon in the process. And so subterranean canyons probably won't be as deep as the grand canyon, although I suppose if I searched hard enough I might fight examples of exceptionally deep prehistoric canyons.

Your jumping into way to much information than i am willing to review at the moment and failing to conceptualize a very basic picture that i am presenting. I think the reason you can’t conceptualize it is not because its counter intuitive. But because it cant be made to fit in with what you think you know about this subject.

The Colorado plateau has multiple sedimentary and limestone layers that government geologist claim were laid down over periods of hundreds of millions of years. Yet they also claim that the literally thousands of canyons that represent the drainage from the Rockies and that plateau are relatively new. Measured by the tens of thousands of years. So if say the lower half of the sedimentary, volcanic and limestone layers are 100 million plus years old. It is not unreasonable, or counter intuitive to assume that those hundred million plus layers on the bottom half would have had some canyons carved into them also. Only later to be covered by the multiple layers of sediment containing fossils that were laid on top of them. But we don't see any that i know of in that region. Only on the surface caused by localized flooding and erosion. That data fits a Noah's flood model better than what government scientists say.

So lets just stick to this area of the world since it’s the op’s subject matter and its not been all carved up by glaciers making it a little more simple to observe. Plus full disclosure before you put to much time into this discussion with me. There are times when i have spent many hours over many weeks discussing these things with biologists and geologists. This will not be one of those times. Im just to busy for it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Your jumping into way to much information than i am willing to review at the moment and failing to conceptualize a very basic picture that i am presenting. I think the reason you can’t conceptualize it is not because its counter intuitive. But because it cant be made to fit in with what you think you know about this subject.

The Colorado plateau has multiple sedimentary and limestone layers that government geologist claim were laid down over periods of hundreds of millions of years. Yet they also claim that the literally thousands of canyons that represent the drainage from the Rockies and that plateau are relatively new. Measured by the tens of thousands of years. So if say the lower half of the sedimentary, volcanic and limestone layers are 100 million plus years old. It is not unreasonable, or counter intuitive to assume that those hundred million plus layers on the bottom half would have had some canyons carved into them also. Only later to be covered by the multiple layers of sediment containing fossils that were laid on top of them. But we don't see any that i know of in that region. Only on the surface caused by localized flooding and erosion. That data fits a Noah's flood model better than what government scientists say.

So lets just stick to this area of the world since it’s the op’s subject matter and its not been all carved up by glaciers making it a little more simple to observe. Plus full disclosure before you put to much time into this discussion with me. There are times when i have spent many hours over many weeks discussing these things with biologists and geologists. This will not be one of those times. Im just to busy for it.

The grand canyon isn't hundreds of millions of years old, so why would the oldest rocks at the bottom of the canyon have gorges in them? The rocks are older than the canyon of course.

Or more technically speaking, the laramide orogeny occurred relatively recently in the late Cenozoic and thus there is no reason to expect gorges to form in the Mesozoic or paleozoic as a product of the laramide orogeny before the laramide orogeny ever occurred.

The entire west coast USA was under the shallow ocean back in the Paleozoic and the Rockies did not exist in the Mesozoic, and thus we shouldn't expect canyons to exist in such a place. Because canyons only exist in areas that are tectonically uplifted. This is why we don't find canyons in Louisiana but we find them near the Rockies and in new england.


Try using geologic periods to explain where you expect canyons to be, so that I understand specifically what rocks you're referring to.

For example, if you said "why don't we find canyons in the Paleozoic of Arizona?" I could simply say, "well, the state was under water then. Or you could say "well why don't we find canyons in the Archean of California?" And I could say "well, all the rock there is recycled and metamorphosed".

My response depends on your ability to convey your concerns.

Or you can show me a picture if you'd like.

And I have all the time in the world, but it's up to you!

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The grand canyon isn't hundreds of millions of years old, so why would the oldest rocks at the bottom of the canyon have gorges in them? The rocks are older than the canyon of course.

Or more technically speaking, the laramide orogeny occurred relatively recently in the late Cenozoic and thus there is no reason to expect gorges to form in the Mesozoic or paleozoic as a product of the laramide orogeny before the laramide orogeny ever occurred.

The entire west coast USA was under the shallow ocean back in the Paleozoic and the Rockies did not exist in the Mesozoic, and thus we shouldn't expect canyons to exist in such a place. Because canyons only exist in areas that are technically uplifted. This is why we don't find canyons in Louisiana but we find them near the Rockies and in new england.

You have to be able to understand what I am saying if you intend to make a clear case for your position.

And you have to understand the topic well enough to explain your thoughts as well. For example, try using geologic periods to explain where you expect canyons to be, so that I understand specifically what rocks you're referring to.

For example, if you said "why don't we find canyons in the Paleozoic of Arizona?" I could simply say, "well, the state was under water then. Or you could say "well why don't we find canyons in the Archean of California?" And I could say "well, all the rock there is recycled and metamorphosed".

My response depends on your ability to convey your concerns.

I didn't say the canyon is hundreds of millions of years old. I said the government scientists say the various layers of sediment are hundreds of millions of years old. If you say the whole area was
Below sea level most of that time then ill say its 900 feet high and little in the way of uplifting like you would see in California for that much land to rise lime that.

 

[Job 33:6]

I didn't say the canyon is hundreds of millions of years old. I said the government scientists say the various layers of sediment are hundreds of millions of years old. If you say the whole area was
Below sea level most of that time then ill say its 900 feet high and little in the way of uplifting like you would see in California for that much land to rise lime that.

What do you mean by the second part?

The laramide orogeny is generally estimated to be less than 100 million years old. And so no rocks older than 100 million years old, would be expected to have had any canyons or to have been made by erosion from any canyons.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

What do you mean by the second part?

The laramide orogeny is generally estimated to be less than 100 million years old. And so no rocks older than 100 million years old, would be expected to have had any canyons or to have been made by erosion from any canyons.

Woops, 9000 feet high.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll do a breakdown:

"The Colorado plateau has multiple sedimentary and limestone layers that government geologist claim were laid down over periods of hundreds of millions of years. "

Correct, the rocks go back into the billions.

Yet they also claim that the literally thousands of canyons that represent the drainage from the Rockies and that plateau are relatively new. Measured by the tens of thousands of years.

Correct, because the rocks that make up the canyon only began lifting up to form the Rockies around 80 million years ago and the uplift which produced the erosion of the grand canyon even more recently sometime between 30-50 million years old. And of course new tributaries are endlessly forming as the landscape continues to change.

So if say the lower half of the sedimentary, volcanic and limestone layers are 100 million plus years old.

The lower half is Paleozoic which is 300-600 million years old and beyond. Some parts have precambrian in the lower half which goes back over a billion.

Good so far.

It is not unreasonable, or counter intuitive to assume that those hundred million plus layers on the bottom half would have had some canyons carved into them also.

The laramide orogeny isn't hundreds of millions of years old. So it wouldnt be reasonable to expect prehistoric canyons in them.

We do have modern canyons in them. The calorado rivers grand canyon goes right down into billion year old rock.

 

[Job 33:6]

Woops, 9000 feet high.

9,000 feet / 30,000,000 years is 0.0003 feet per year.

That's 0.0036 inches per year or 0.1 millimeters per year. Which is perfectly reasonable for an average rate of tectonic uplift.

The himilayas grow much faster than that rate today.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hope the above helps!

9,000 feet / 30,000,000 years is 0.0003 feet per year.

That's 0.0036 inches per year. Which is perfectly reasonable for an average rate of tectonic uplift.

The himilayas grow much faster than that rate today.

And California mountains are a little older, 150 million years, because uplift came from the west so California lifted first out of the water, then Arizona thereafter. California mountains are still rising 1-2 millimeters per year to this very day.

If you like using smart phone apps, I would recommend an app called "RockD", it's free and had a nice interactive paleomap that can also help put the above into perspective.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

9,000 feet / 30,000,000 years is 0.0003 feet per year.

That's 0.0036 inches per year. Which is perfectly reasonable for an average rate of tectonic uplift.

The himilayas grow much faster than that rate today.

I know how fast mountain ranges are growing. Great evidence for a young earth.
Not my point. Which is the typical upheavals seen in the geology with that kind of growth not present in the sedimentary layers in the canyons. Only beneath them. Great evidence for the upheavals that preceded Noahs flood by the way.
But back to dates. Supia group that government geologists say is almost 300 million years old has vertebra tracks in it. So I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say the sediment layers are not old enough to have any canyons carved into them.

By the way. I believe everything the government scientists are saying about the dates are garbage. Im just using their own numbers against them.

 

[Job 33:6]

I know how fast mountain ranges are growing. Great evidence for a young earth.
Not my point. Which is the typical upheavals seen in the geology with that kind of growth not present in the sedimentary layers in the canyons. Only beneath them. Great evidence for the upheavals that preceded Noahs flood by the way.
But back to dates. Supia group that government geologists say is almost 300 million years old has vertebra tracks in it. So I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say the sediment layers are not old enough to have any canyons carved into them.

By the way. I believe everything the government scientists are saying about the dates are garbage. Im just using their own numbers against them.

There is plenty of evidence of similar rates of uplift in older mountains. Just not in Arizona because there were none.

And why does it matter if there are trackways in the carboniferous? Just because it had risen above sea level doesn't mean it was elevated enough for a canyon. As noted above, louisiana is above sea level but there are no canyons there. Canyons require significant uplift. Mountain building orogenesis. The oldest orogeny that I'm aware of that would have any value in this conversation would be the nevadan orogeny and that was about 150 million years ago. So there's no reason to expect anything before that time as far as canyons go.

If you go to the east coast the orogenies are much older if you wanted to talk about those over by the Pennsylvanian grand canyon. You won't find canyons in low lying regions anywhere on earth only in areas tectonically uplifted via orogenesis.

And just to affirm what was also noted above, even if there were more ancient canyons, if those canyons were to be filled in, they would be filled in by their own steep walls and thus would no longer even be canyons, and so we wouldn't even expect to find an underground canyon like the grand canyon anyway. We would only expect to find sedimentary basins along prehistoric continental shelves, such as those depicted in the figures posted above. Eventually the walls of the grand canyon will erode away, just like gorges and canyons before it. And nothing will be left but the downstream basin of sediment.

 

[Job 33:6]

There is plenty of evidence of similar rates of uplift in older mountains. Just not in Arizona because there were none.

And why does it matter if there are trackways in the carboniferous? Just because it had risen above sea level doesn't mean it was elevated enough for a canyon. As noted above, louisiana is above sea level but there are no canyons there. Canyons require significant uplift. Mountain building orogenesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

"government geologists" lol. All government geologists do is issue contracts to private sector geologists to do their dirty work. Then private sector scientists as a whole have higher salaries. There's no such thing as a government structural geologist or petrologist, unless you live in some autocratic country like Saudi Arabia. And in the end, geologists aren't even the ones dating rocks at all, those are typically chemists, physicists and other forms of lab rats.