Grand Canyon and the Flood

[Micaiah]

This thread follows on from a previous discussion on the formation of sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon.

I understand the evolutionists view of the Canyon formation requires large periods of time for the layers and fossils of the canyon to form in the first place, and then long periods of time for a river to erode it to its current depth.

The following was a post originally from Notto. Post 270 at Post Link

Another thing you need to account for related to dating geologic features is that you need to account for the time to

a) Create the sedimentary rock
b) erode the rock to its current position

For instance, you need to explain the Grand Canyon by first identifying how the think layers of rock could form quickly and become rock, and then how this rock, once it has formed, could erode quickly to show the the errosion patterns and features that are shown.

Often time YEC descriptions have both of these being done by the flood, which just doesn't seem possible. There would need to be a period of time between when the layers of soft sediment became rocks, and when they could then be eroded.

Which did the flood cause, the creation of the layers of sediment in the Grand Canyon (which then would take a fair amount of time to turn into rock, even by YEC standards - hundreds of years) or, the erosion of these rocks once they were formed (which, if it happened quickly would require the rocks to be formed first, and then a large inundation of water to create the errosion).

Since I am not a geologist, I’ll post a link from AIG that gives a possible explanation for the formation of the canyons during the flood. AIG Link

By way of introduction, the link gives a description of a canyon that formed in North America over two years. That includes time for the walls to be constructed. Having read the link I conclude that things are not always as they seem. One rock layer of the canyon wall was 30 ft thick, and was formed in less than an afternoon. This layer consists of thousands of
individual layers, some only one millimeter thick.

The following is a description of the event that lead to the formation of a modern canyon.

Mount St Helens: Evidence for Creation!
One of the largest volcanic eruptions in North America occurred at 8:32 A.M. on Sunday, May 18, 1980. With an explosive eruption that was the equivalent to twenty millions tons of TNT, the once prominent volcano with an elevation of 9,677 feet quickly lost 1,300 feet of summit elevation.

An Earthquake registering 5.1 on the Richter scale occurred directly underneath the summit. This Earthquake sent a 1/2 cubic mile landslide off the top. One-fourth of this went north into Spirit Lake, displacing water approximately 860 feet above the pre-eruption level. The remaining part of the landslide went down to the west into the Toutle River drainage basin. As the summit and north slope were displaced, super hot liquid flashed to steam resulting in a steam blast. This immense blast, equivalent to 20 million tons of TNT, created a ground hugging slurry of volcanic ash and steam traveling at about 200 mph. This slurry and ash, which was at a temperature of 550 degrees F, totally devastated a wide path of timber on the north side of the mountain and caused trees as far away as 19 miles to topple. The gases and ash unleashed from the volcano are estimated to have exceeded 1,472 degrees F. Over a nine hour period, the plume emitted from the volcano had released energy equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT.

 

[Micaiah]

The following describes the stratification process of the canyon walls:

The walls of the Toutle River canyons were formed by the three events described above. The June 12th pumice deposit was formed by a flow with hurricane-like velocity, resulting in a finely layered formation. This did not take hundreds or thousands of years to form, but formed in a matter of hours (for the middle section), and two years for the entire height! The evolutionist theory for the formation of these walls is that the stream located at the bottom eroded them over thousands of years. What actually happened was that the mud flow that created deposits forming the cliff also created the stream.

The following describes the process by which the canyon was formed:

The valley of the Toutle River was blocked by the landslide material deposited in 1980. On March 19, 1982, a massive mud flow gouged out and breached the dam. This giant mud flow cut a whole new series of channels. Part of the drainage basin formed in the Spirit Lake area. The newly formed canyons include a complexity of features such as a flat gully-headed side canyon, a cup-shaped side canyon, and a snaking pattern. Did a river over the course of thousands of years slowly cut its way through these areas to form the canyons? No. The massive mud flows created these channels over a period of days.

Is this an explanation for the way the Grand Canyon could form during the flood? Bear in mind that Scripture teaches there were some major geological upheavals at the time of the flood.

Genesis 7 - 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

 

[notto]

Micaiah,

The article you reference may indicate layers of sediment forming but does not refer to these layers turning into rock. How long do you think it will take for these layers to turn into rock?

Also, are there any of the following features inbetween these layers of sediment (mud).

- raindrop impressions
- footprints
- animal burrows
- trees and tree roots

This is in no way similar to the geology and canyon that is the grand canyon.

How many seashells were trapped in the formation described? How many extinct animals? How many different kinds of animals? How many seasonal layers of pollen?

Also, if dated using ANY dating method, will the layers date differently?

Are there layers of lava or sand dunes layed down inbetween any of the layers in this formation?

Are there any types of rocks in the formation that are evaporates that take a long time to form? (Remember, there are not any rocks AT ALL in the walls of this canyon. It is mud and will not be rock for a long time).

An examination of the layers will make it very clear that they were formed from volcanic ash and very fine mud. This is not the case with the Grand Canyon.

Also, this quote from the article:

"The evolutionist theory for the formation of these walls is that the stream located at the bottom eroded them over thousands of years. "

is simply deceptive. Please show me one reference of an evolutionist that says that these formations could not have formed rapidly.

Again, this is not evidence that cannot be explained by both an old earth or young earth explaination and therefore does nothing to falsify either.

If these walls turn to solid rock over the next thousand years, then we will have something to talk about.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The problem here is that the rock strata that comprise the Grand Canyon (most of them) are sedimentary. The Mt. St. Helens example is one where the strata are pyroclastic in origin: they are ash (and pumice was also mentioned). The mud is also soil--soil is different from unconsolidated sediment (clarification: mud can form rock under pressure, but I am referring to the unconsolidated sediment of the type that comprises sandstone layers, for example, in the Grand Canyon which have a different source than mud)--that flows due to the effects of the volcano in a process called liquefaction. This is not the same scenario at all as the Grand Canyon.

The Grand Canyon is comprised of sediments deposited in a VARIETY of environments: from desert, wind deposited strata to sediments deposited by rivers and even sediments precipitated from seawater. Such strata evidently take longer to form and consolidate into rock than quick-cooling volcanic debris.

The problem here is that your comparison is not valid by a long shot. These two scenarios are not analogues.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Please explain how the many layers of the GC alternate between different types of rock.

- There are limestones full of marine fossils that formed at the bottom of ancient seas.

- There are sandstones that contain fossils and geologic features indicative of a dry desert.

- There are shales formed from mud along ancient shorelines.

- There are hard schists, formed under intense heat and pressure in the depths of the Earth.

The AiG article doesn't even come close to adequatly explaining the geology of the Grand Canyon.

For a more scientific explanation, this page is a great start.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

double post

 

[Micaiah]

Thanks for your detailed posts.

Can someone give the evolutionists timeframe for the formation of the Canyon. How long did it take for the canyon to form to its current depth.

The article doesn't answer answers relating to specific layers of the Grand Canyon. That is done in other articles I've seen. This article gives a possible mechanism to explain how canyons with layered side walls could be formed during the flood.

 

[Micaiah]

Posts by Notto:

Also, are there any of the following features inbetween these layers of sediment (mud).

- raindrop impressions
- footprints
- animal burrows
- trees and tree roots

A description of the tree inclusions is given in the article. The discussion on footprints is given in other articles. Can you give references for descriptions of the burrows. My access to information is largely restricted to the net.

This is in no way similar to the geology and canyon that is the grand canyon.

How many seashells were trapped in the formation described? How many extinct animals? How many different kinds of animals? How many seasonal layers of pollen?

Also, if dated using ANY dating method, will the layers date differently?

Are there layers of lava or sand dunes layed down inbetween any of the layers in this formation?

These will be given later, and are discussed in other articles.

Are there any types of rocks in the formation that are evaporates that take a long time to form?

Please clarify?!

Post by LFOD

There are hard schists, formed under intense heat and pressure in the depths of the Earth.

Can you describe how deep this layer is? Is there any sedimentary rock below this layer containing fossils. Scripture is clear that prior to plants and animals, God created the earth. So you would expect to get down to a certain depth of bedrock that didn't contain any fossils. Perhaps that is what the hard schists are!? BTW, nice diagram.

Post by Mechanical Bliss

from desert, wind deposited strata to sediments deposited by rivers and even sediments precipitated from seawater.

Can you describe the evidence that exists to demonstrate these layers were actually formed in this way.

 

[sulphur]

Micaih you show an lack of geologic knowledge.The presence of schist and granite cannot be explained by simple mudsides. The presence of an unconformity before the deposition of the tapeats sandstone indicates aperiod of erosion The presence ofseveral different levels of limestone shows different periods of deposition Age from the presence of pre cambrian rock fragments may be up 2000 millionyears


http://www.aqd.npsgov/grd/parks/grca/

 

[Micaiah]

Originally posted by sulphur
Micaih you show an lack of geologic knowledge.The presence of schist and granite cannot be explained by simple mudsides. The presence of an unconformity before the deposition of the tapeats sandstone indicates aperiod of erosion The presence ofseveral different levels of limestone shows different periods of deposition Age from the presence of pre cambrian rock fragments may be up 2000 millionyears


http://www.aqd.npsgov/grd/parks/grca/

I've never pretended to be a geologist Sulphur, so I ask that you prepare your posts with some consideration of my lack of expertise.

That said I have never suggested granite and schist came as a result of mudslides. Read my posts again. I suggest you take a little more care reviewing the comments made. How about responding to some of my questions.

BTW, your link doesn't work.

 

[sulphur]

Of course I will respond to any "reasonable" question

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Micaiah
A description of the tree inclusions is given in the article.

From the Article:
"The logs left floating in Spirit Lake float upright. This is because the bottom of the tree has a higher mass and density. These floating trees provide convincing evidence that supports the creationist petrified forest theory. This theory is that floating logs become heavier as they absorb water and then sink to the bottom. Due to the rapid sedimentation occurring in the lake as the result of surrounding erosion, the log is quickly covered with sedimentation. The logs drop to the lake bottom at different times. As they are covered with sedimentation, strata form. This happens over a short period of time instead of thousands of years, and is formed from a single forest, not generations of forests."

This does not represent what we find in petrified forests or in other features. There are many forest fossils that show the trees petrified in the place where they grew and not that were floating and moved. We can tell this because the roots are still embedded in cracks and crevices in the soil and the very delicate root structures are preserved.

The evaporates I mentioned are the time of rocks we discussed in another thread. Things like gypsum and such that can only form when large amounts of water that are saturated with minerals evaporate. There are not "rocks" like this in the layers of the canyon described in the link you provided. In fact, there are no "rocks" forming the canyon layers at all.

To suggest that the grand canyon was created by this same mechanism is showing ignorance of the actual geology of the grand canyon.

There are several forms of rock in the grand canyon that would need to indeed be true rock (hard and complete) before they could be cut by running water. This is very different than the soil and mud that creates the canyon they use by comparison.

Geologists would never confuse these two canyons for being created the same way, in the same amount of time. The analogy is oversimplication at the least, or knowing misrepresentation at the worst. In either case, it is bad science.

We have discussed the use of evidence that falsifies a theory. You will notice that YEC websites will only seem to attack evidence that clearly faslifies YEC theories. They do not present evidence that falsifies evolution.

When they claim "Evidence for a young earth", they often make it sound like they have found something that is evidence against an old earth and this is often not true. It is not evidence for a young earth if it can also be described by an old earth scenario.

Can you find one piece of evidence at ICR or AIG that cannot be explained by mainstream theories of geology, physics, or biology and indeed seems to falsify them? Remember, not only does it need to be explained by YEC theories, it cannot conflict with other evidence or theories. There is not a single line of evidence that can be followed that shows a young earth and explains away all of the different lines of evidence in physics, geology, archeology, biology and astronomy that point to an old earth and an old universe.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Can you describe how deep this layer is?

This is in fact the deepest layer of the Canyon. Scientists believe these rocks are the base of a very ancient mountain range.

Can you describe the evidence that exists to demonstrate these layers were actually formed in this way.

Try this link: http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm

 

[Micaiah]

LFOD - Nice link. I can actually understand some of it. I am also querying the evidence to support the assumed methods of layer formation eg
dry desert, mud along ancient shorelines, hard schists formed under intense heat and pressure in the depths of the earth. How can we be sure these layers were what you say they were? That will be the key point in assessing the catastophic and uniform models of layer formation.

 

[sulphur]

How can you be sure of the accuracy oy the geology of the grand canyon? If you can find a reputable geologist to dis agree then please let us hear of him. You say you know little about geology but are ready to question experts who I hold in high respect. PUT brain in gear before engaging fingers.

 

[Micaiah]

And how do you define a reputable geologist - one who accepts the evolutionists interpretation of the data? 'd like a more objective assessment. Have you considered the credentials of some of the YEC geologists.

 

[sulphur]

At the moment I am questioning your ability to stop,think and perhaps absorb the help we have been giving you

 

[Micaiah]

I'm waiting for some help here Sulphur, or some comments at least on the questions posed. Making demeaning personal remarks doesn't take much effort, and shows little intelligence.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by Micaiah
dry desert,

A layer deposited by a desert would have similar features to structures we find in modern deserts. Large scale cross bedding, for example, is representative of sand dune migration. We can also look at the fossils and secondary structures (tracks, burrows, etc.) to determine what types of organisms were present in the environment. We can also look at the size of the clasts in the layer: in this case sand-sized particles comprise the layer.

mud along ancient shorelines,

Shales/mudstones would result from the high-pressure lithification of material with a smaller clast size than the above example. We might also find evidence of chemically precipitated minerals (calcite, gypsum, anhydrite, aragonite, dolomite, etc.) indicative of saturated marine water.

hard schists formed under intense heat and pressure in the depths of the earth.

Schists are metamorphic rocks and form from the high temperature and pressure reformation of sedimentary rocks. They are easily identifiable because they are foliated (layered), usually according to mineralogy, due to the pressure of their formation. We know how these things form because we've seen metamorphosed country rock adjacent to large heat sources such as igneous plutons. We can also artificially create schists in high pressure labs. Furthermore, schists are crystalline rocks, not sedimentary, thus they must have formed by heat and pressure and not by deposition and lithification.

How can we be sure these layers were what you say they were?

We can be relatively sure of these explanations because they follow one of the basic tenets of geology: uniformitarianism. We look at processes operating at present to make predictions about how lithified sediment would appear in the stratigraphic record if deposited by a particular environment. Dunes in a desert would be represented by cross bedding structures in a sandstone formation. You can even go to a location and dig an outcrop for yourself (as I have done in my field work) to look at a cross section of unconsolidated sediments being deposited and how certain structures are maintained. Furthermore, paleontological evidence gives us insight as to what types of organisms were present when a layer was being formed. For example, one would not expect to find marine fossils encased in sandstone with large scale cross bedding. Knowing what types of organisms were present also gives us insight into the particular depositional environment. We can be sure that these layers are what we say they were because our explanations rely directly on the evidence and we have yet to find any evidence that contradicts these explanations.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by Micaiah
And how do you define a reputable geologist - one who accepts the evolutionists interpretation of the data?

This has virtually nothing to do with "evolutionists interpretation" of the data. Last time I checked, evolutionary biologists aren't the ones taking geologic observations and deducing logical explanations for the data. The theory of evolution does  not even enter into this discussion except for perhaps paleontologists looking at fossilized organisms in the various layers of the Grand Canyon and how they change through the stratigraphic section. This is about a geological interpretation of the data, and not about evolution.

I'd define a reputable geologist as someone who studied at an accredited university (and a good one in the geological sciences) and who doesn't use the Bible as the end-all be-all when making assumptions that are contradicted by real world observations and who doesn't simply throw out basic principles of geology without reason. I think it's pretty safe to say that anyone with an M.S. / Ph.D. from Berkeley, Cal Tech, MIT, Columbia, Harvard, Michigan, Wisconsin, Stanford, etc. in the geological sciences would be a reputable geologist, for example.